In a case called New York City v. Fifth Ave. Presbyterian Church, No. 06-163, the City has filed a cert. petition which includes, according to U.S. Law Week, the following Question Presented:
> "Did the holding of Second Circuit that church's maintaining of nightly > encampment on its steps is constitutionally protected religious conduct err > by failing to consider that church's failure to provide security, toilets > and sanitary facilities, and shelter from elements stands in direct > contravention to religious doctrine of serving needy, which church cites as > basis for maintaining encampment?"
Wow. "Please tell the Second Circuit to tell the church that it is wrong about its religion." (Thanks to Walter Weber for the news.)
ThisWall Street Journal piece reports that "[o]ver the past two years scores of organizations have faced scrutiny [from the IRS] for allegedly mixing their political convictions with their religious ones. And this summer the IRS expanded a program it first launched in 2004 to take direct aim at political advocacy inside houses of worship." It continues:
The new crackdown, which the IRS calls the Political Activity Compliance Initiative, has so far put some 15,000 nonprofits--mostly churches--on notice that preaching politics puts them at risk of audits, fines or, in some cases, the loss of tax-exempt status. The IRS has also announced it will no longer wait for complaints to come in, but will instead take action "to prevent violations." It will be reviewing the content of sermons, it says, as well as the financial books of religious organizations. The free exercise of religion could now come with a hefty bill.
Religious leaders and activists have always spoken provocatively — and even prophetically — about faith's implications for citizens, candidates, policies and elections. Not surprisingly, these reminders often prompt criticism and resistance in the pews, the news media and the public square. But we should neither demand nor expect our faith commitments or religious ministers to tell us only what we want to hear, or always to assure us that we and the status quo are doing just fine. What's more, it should not be the place of government officials or IRS agents to impose and enforce a line between pastors' stirring sermons and partisan stump speeches. . . .
It is the regulation of the churches' expression, and not their expression itself, that should raise constitutional red flags. Religious institutions are not above the law, but a government that respects the separation of church and state should be extremely wary of telling churches and religious believers whether they are being appropriately "religious" or excessively "political" or partisan. Churches and congregants, not bureaucrats and courts, must define the perimeter of religion's challenges. It should not be for the state to label as electioneering, endorsement, or lobbying what a religious community considers evangelism, worship or witness.
Of course, there are good reasons — religious reasons — for clergy to be cautious and prudent when addressing campaigns, issues and candidates.
Reasonable people with shared religious commitments still can disagree about many, even most, policy and political matters. It compromises religion to not only confine its messages to the Sabbath but also to pretend that it speaks clearly to every policy question. A hasty endorsement, or a clumsy or uncharitable political charge, has no place in a house of worship or during a time of prayer — not because religion does not speak to politics, but because it is about more, and is more important, than politics.
See also this paper I wrote a while back, "A Quiet Faith? Taxes, Politics, and the Privatization of Religion":
The government exempts religious associations from taxation and, in return, restricts their putatively “political” expression and activities. This exemption-and-restriction scheme invites government to interpret and categorize the means by which religious communities live out their vocations and engage the world. But government is neither well suited nor to be trusted with this kind of line-drawing. What’s more, this invitation is dangerous to authentically religious consciousness and associations. When government communicates and enforces its own view of the nature of religion, i.e., that it is a “private” matterand of its proper place, i.e., in the “private” sphere, not “in politics” it tempts believers and faith communities also to embrace this view. The result is a privatized faith, re-shaped to suit the vision and needs of government, and a public square evacuated of religious associations capable of mediating between persons and the state and challenging prophetically the government’s claims and conduct.
Susan responds here to my post about the recent decision at Georgetown regarding outside Protestant ministries. Regarding my assumption that "Georgetown's campus-ministry office has similar policies with respect to outside Catholic ministries and organizations, like Opus Dei and Regnum Christi," Susan writes that "it appears that the change in policy is one that affects only the affiliated Protestant ministries operating at Georgetown, not any Catholic ones." I continue to suspect, though, that Georgetown's Office of Campus Ministry policies with respect to outside Catholic ministries like Opus Dei and Regnum Chrisi looks like the one recently adopted for outside Protestant ministries. Does anyone know for sure?
In addition to peddling a laughably superficial narrative about Church-state relations in early 20th century Mexico, the Washington Postarticle mentioned below quotes an angry supporter of López Obrador who is critical (as are, apparently, many protesters and demonstrators) of Cardinal Rivera for urging Mexican Catholicss to (quoting the Post) "respect a decision by a special elections court rejecting López Obrador's request for a full recount and ordering a recount of only 9 percent of polling places[.]" According to this critic, the Cardinal is "getting into politics . . . The church is for God, not for politics." The Post's writer similarly characterize Rivera as "blend[ing] the spiritual and the secular."
But, Lopez Obrador's entire campaign has been soaked in religious imagery and language, decorated with pictures of saints, Pope John Paul II, and the Virgin of Guadalupe. Who is "blend[ing] the spiritual and the secular"?
The Post today features a story on Cardinal Rivera's current unpopularity among supporters of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. According to the Post, the "tension" between Rivera and his critics "has roots in history":
Troops supported by the Catholic Church fought a bloody, three-year war against the Mexican government in the 1920s. The war, which cost more than 70,000 lives, was an unsuccessful attempt to overturn reforms that had stripped the church of its considerable influence over the government and the country's financial system.
Hmmm. The "reforms" of the 1917 Constitution and the Calles government involved the slaughter of priests and Catholic peasants (the "Cristeros") who resisted the state's ferocious efforts to put down the Church, institute a cultural revolution worthy of Pol Pot, and thoroughly secularize Mexican society. (It was, for a time, an offense to say "Adios.") Religious processions were prohibited; Catholic schools, convents, and monasteries were closed; foreign priests and nuns were deported; and those priests who were not killed were required to register with the government before receiving permission to perform work in the state's puppet church. Ah, reform!
That a news story, in one of our best papers, is -- in an article about church-state relations in Mexico -- content simply to report that "[t]roops supported by the Catholic Church fought a bloody, three-year war against the Mexican government in the 1920s" is a disgrace -- for journalism, for our schools and universities, and for the Post.
John Locke was born on this day in 1632. (So were Ingrid Bergman, Charlie Parker, and Slobodan Milosevic.)
Here is Locke's Letter on Toleration (1689). Here is a paper by Steve Smith, "Toleration and Liberal Commitments." And, here is an interview with Stanley Fish, "There's No Such Thing as Free Speech."
Question: Which term is more often used (or misused) in law-school classes: "Lockean", "Kantian", or "Rawlsian"?
Thanks to Rob for linking to the story about Georgetown's move against several outside Protestant ministries and organizations. (I assume, by the way, that Georgetown's campus-ministry office has similar policies with respect to outside Catholic ministries and organizations, like Opus Dei and Regnum Christi).
On the one hand, I am sympathetic to the idea that a Catholic university -- one that takes seriously, in a consistent way, its responsibilities with respect to the development and formation of students -- might want to oversee and centralize, through its own campus-ministry office, the pastoral and services provided to students on campus. Is Georgetown such a Catholic university? I don't know.
It seems worth noting that the decision at issue appears to have been made -- or, at least, executed -- by the University's Protestant ministry staff. Jody Bottum, in the First Thingspost to which Rob links, adds:
Still, there was something odd going on last year when Campus Ministries demanded that the evangelical groups sign a statement promising not to “proselytize nor undermine another faith community.” And there was something even odder when it was done in the name of the school’s Catholic tradition—by the Protestant chaplains in the official Georgetown office.
The problem, of course, finally boils down to this: The evangelical groups represent only a few hundred students, but they are strongly pro-life and opposed to homosexual marriage. The mainline Protestant employees of Campus Ministry find such things embarrassing, and so they kick the evangelicals off campus, employing the power of the officially Catholic chaplain’s office and the rhetoric of the school’s Catholic identity.
Well, sort of. Katherine Harris's stupid statement about electing Christians -- aside: why is it so hard for people who believe, as I do, that faith and public life are not and cannot be compartmentalized to avoid falling into the "separation of church and state is a myth" trap -- reminded me of this, from then-Cardinal Ratzinger's Salt of the Earth. After observing that, in fact, it was Christianity that brought the separation of Church and state into the world, he continues:
“Until then the political constitution and religion were always united.It was the norm in all cultures for the state to have sacrality in itself and be the supreme protector of sacrality. . . .Christianity did not accept this but deprived the state of its sacral nature.. . . In this sense, this separation is ultimately a primordial Christian legacy and also a decisive factor for freedom.Thus, the state is not itself a sacred power but simply an order that finds its limits in a faith that worships, not the state, but a God who stands over against it and judges it.”
This editorial, from today's Washington Post, caught my attention. Here is the first paragraph:
WE HAVE our differences with Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). But his record on clemency, the dispensing of mercy to those convicted of crimes, is truly exemplary. Where many governors, and President Bush, wield their power to forgive with great timidity -- seeing virtually any substantial use of it as a potential political liability with no upside -- Mr. Ehrlich has been bold. In less than one term in office, his 190 pardons and commutations eclipse by far the sum of those issued in two terms each by his immediate predecessors, William Donald Schaefer and Parris N. Glendening. Other chief executives should take note.
I tend to agree that our practices today with respect to crime-and-punishment are such that executive clemency is an important means of correcting or preventing injustices and should be used freely for this purpose. At the same time, there is always the danger that clemency, if granted haphazardly, casually, or arbitrarily, can undermine the very ends it is supposed to promote. So, what's the solution?
Here and here are some earlier MOJ posts on the subject.
As Rob reported not long ago, there has been a lively conversation in the blogosphere -- particularly in the right-leaning sectors -- about Heather MacDonalds' recent piece criticizing conservatives' use of religious arguments. (Lots links available here). Now, Ms. MacDonald has written an admirably charitable and thoughtful response to some of her critics, in particular Michael Novak.
