WoodMoor Village Zendo

National Day of Prayer?

I've commented on this before, but there is more attention paid to this issue out there now, and a movement to change things around:

The National Day of Prayer is primarily organized and planned by a single-perspective group (the National Day of Prayer Task Force, headed by none other than Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson) that has framed the event in less than inclusive terms. The Washington Post reports on the controversy surrounding the event and highlights a few, shall we say, less than inclusive rules that the organizers have established:

1) The application form requires coordinators to pledge that the activities carried out will be "conducted solely by Christians while those with differing beliefs are welcome to attend." In short, the event has been framed as a Christian event rather than as a national ecumenical event.

2) Volunteers are also required to pledge that only Christian clergy will officiate.

3) All volunteers have to make a statement of faith that apparently is fairly constraining in its terms if the volunteer is not a conservative evangelical. From the WaPo: "Lisa Crump, manager of local coordinators...says... "A simple application with contact data and statement of faith, confirming your commitment to Christ is all that's needed to get you on the way to becoming a NDP Task Force volunteer coordinator."

4) From the WaPo: "Applicants must indicate whether their lives reflect a belief statement that begins: "I believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of The Living God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the only One by which I can obtain salvation and have an ongoing relationship with God."

They should stop playing that masquerade. If it is to be a National Christian Day of Prayer event, keeping everybody else playing second (or third) fiddle, then that's what they should say. Then again, our government should not support a day of prayer that is not inclusive (I'd rather our government did not advocate for prayer in any way).

Upholding Moral Principles...

Apparently, Archbishop Jose Gomez has complained about plans for a rally by Sen. and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, at St. Mary's University, the oldest Catholic college in San Antonio. Why object to her presence at the Catholic school? Because Sen. Clinton is a supporter of women's right to choose, and of embryonic stem cell research. According to Archbishop Gomez, the U.S. Catholic Bishops have affirmed a statement of non-support (or not to provide a platform) for political candidates or officeholders "who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles."

Ok, I can see that policy being fine for a particular religious community (isolating as it might be). But... I hope they apply it fairly. What if Mr. Bush (a political officeholder!) came to speak on campus? Would they use the same rationale to deny him an opportunity to speak? Hasn't he acted in defiance of those same fundamental moral principles? Which fundamental moral principles are they willing to not uphold?

Questions about Religion for Presidential Candidates

Almost two weeks ago legal scholar Marci Hamilton wrote a neat column detailing questions about church and state that she would ask of various presidential candidates. It is well worth a read, check it out. The questions for Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani in particular are quite provocative.

I'd ask even more pointed questions about the philosophy behind their religious beliefs. Are these beliefs non-realist? expressivist? do they believe in a theology of love or fear? would you hire non-believers? would you make clear public statements about the moral worth and moral equity of non-believers to believers... we could go on.

A War Mentality

Dan, over at Faith in Public Life, has a neat short entry "I Declare War on Metaphors" that treats the issue of the supposed war on Christmas. He definitely gets it right when he notes:

As culture war watcher Beth mentioned last week, public observance of Christmas in Basra, Iraq, was canceled after two local Christians were killed because of their religion. That is a war.
Earlier this month Americans United for Separation of Church and State threatened to sue the city of Dallas, Ga., if they didn't remove a nativity scene from public property. That is a legal dispute about the proper use of public property.

This distinction seems lost on the good people at CBN (among many others). According to their story about Dallas, Christmas is "under attack" and "under siege" and "simply part of a larger war being waged on anything and everything Christian."

There is indeed a distinction there. But, let us imagine that the folks at the Americans United for Separation of Church and State truly had nefarious intent at heart. It would still be a shame and an insidious strategy to unleash such a discourse of war in our society. I understand the power of war rhetoric to mobilize folks, but I don't think theo-political leaders that use it recognize the danger and insidiousness of such a discursive move. What possibilities does it occlude? At what cost peace? What would count as disarmament? Who are the soldiers? Enemy combatants? Who are these generals? What weapons are permitted? What atrocities will be committed? What, and whom, do we sacrifice over and over again in this war? How does it harden our heart, narrow our possibilities for compassion, and blind us to the call to love (or at least not harm) our neighbor? One thing seems clear to me: those who seem hell-bent (yes that is purposeful usage) on prosecuting this war need to look deeply at how they encourage, support, or provide aid and comfort to those who may commit atrocities as part of this "war." Let them not forget that there is such a category as war criminal.

Tony Snow-job's Rhetoric

Here are two comments attributed to former White House press secretary Tony Snow:

1) “The average Iranian is more Pro-American than virtually any college faculty in this country.”
2) “...the second war in this country, the war on God.”

There are some who would say that you have to treat this kind of comment with patience, compassion, and the type of engagement that would first recognize common ground, then explore how we could move from such inflammatory rhetoric to a constructive engagement. I don't disagree with some of that, mainly that you have to be willing to engage fully that other person. But let us not fool ourselves. We can have compassion for the person uttering these words. We can offer respect and protect their right to say such things. But we must also not be patsies, passive, or saps when it comes to political and communicative power games like the ones Mr. Snow is playing. Mr. Snow's comments deserve to be treated with the contempt they themselves seek to engender. They must be met with very hard assessment, and no quarter ought be given in castigating them for their insidiousness in sowing division.

Attacks on Religion...

I got tired of selecting two categories, "Politics" and "Religion" for these posts about candidates, so I'm inaugurating a new category: "Theo-Politics." That's where we are anyway, although I've often thought that a theo-politics can be deployed without the cheesy political piety we see in so many of the political candidates nowadays.

I don't quite agree with recent pronouncements about religion by Mr. Romney, but I must say that I find Mr. Huckabee's comments distasteful and just plain disingenuously mean:

In an article to be published Sunday in The New York Times, Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks, "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Romney, vying to become the first Mormon elected president, declined to answer that question during an interview Wednesday, saying church leaders in Salt Lake City had already addressed the topic.

"But I think attacking someone's religion is really going too far. It's just not the American way, and I think people will reject that,"

Really, Huckabee's attempt at creating a sharp distinction are just obnoxious to argument, to democratic culture, to church and state separation issues, to common decency... the rhetorical strategy of association is also quite transparent and not elegantly done at all. In any case, read the news item, much to tease from that exchange.