Faith-Based Education

As the Denver Post reported earlier in the month, Peter Groff has moved from Colorado's State Senate to the Department of Education's "Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Center."

Wait a minute -- we have not only faith-based welfare but faith-based education? Pray tell, what use does the Department of Education have for a faith-based program? The Post quotes a media release about how Groff will "help empower faith-based and community groups, enlisting them in support of the department's mission to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence for all Americans."

And why do we need federal tax dollars to "empower" the educational efforts of religious groups? And where is the Democratic skepticism of mixing church and state?

In a second article, the Post is more specific as to what Groff's department does: "Under the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Education's Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives doled out grants to churches and other faith programs for after-school activities, weekend computer labs and family literacy programs."

It is immoral, a violation of individual rights and of church-state separation, to force people to finance "churches and other faith programs" against their judgment. It was immoral when Bush did it, and remains immoral as Obama follows in Bush's footsteps.

True Tolerance, Or Else

Via 5280 magazine I found the Focus on the Family "true tolerance" web page, the point of which is to promote tolerance of anti-homosexual views. In other words, we are to tolerate intolerance.

And I quite agree that we do need to tolerate intolerance, even as we speak out against nasty sorts of intolerance. That is, the view that homosexuality is somehow inherently sinful is wrong. However, people properly have the right to express (with their own resources) whatever viewpoint they wish.

The matter is complicated by the tax funding of schools. Taking people's money by force to finance either a pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual agenda is wrong and a violation of free speech. Tax funded institutions invite governmental oversight, including protections of speech.

While tax-funded schools cannot properly promote religious views, neither can they properly suppress such views by students in the appropriate context.

And Focus on the Family wants to make darn sure that schools recognize that. The document "What School Officials Should Know About Addressing Homosexuality in Public Schools" helpfully warns schools about adopting policies that "could very easily result in litigation."

Of course, some traditionalists might argue that the proper purpose of school is to teach students about the world and skills for dealing with it, rather than to push for or against some cultural or political agenda.

Religion and the Law

In response to a column by David Harsanyi in the Denver Post, letter writer Martin Voelker rightly points out that "churches aggressively push their arbitrary 'divine' rules into U.S. laws." How? Many religious people want to outlaw abortion, restrict or outlaw birth control, ban pornography (however defined) and limit naughty language, legally discriminate against homosexuals, etc.

After that Voelker gets off track. He claims that churches "reap billions of public dollars for their tax-exempt enterprises." But this confuses a subsidy with a tax break. If we're going to have non-profits for any sort of ideological advocacy, then the rules must be extended to religious groups. However, religious groups should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. (Ultimately, I think all groups should be "tax-exempt," which would eliminate problems associated with those rules.)

Voelker also quotes a line from an atheist ad: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." But the religious will shoot back that the likes of Hitler have misused science. Natural science is applied, specialized knowledge, and the proper application of science depends on a sound philosophical foundation.

However, Voelker does suggest that, in the broader sense, ethics can be a science; he writes that "we must negotiate what constitutes acceptable ethical behavior based on observations we can agree on." This is a little ambiguous; agreement does not demonstrate ethical behavior -- the goal is to agree on what is true. For a start on that, I recommend such works as the recent book by Tara Smith.

Taxes and Religion in Schools

Mike Adams is irritated that a teacher at Los Angeles City College called a student a "fascist bastard" for promoting religion in a class presentation. And Adams has picked an easy target; the teacher's behavior is inexcusable. However, the target is so easy that Adams neglects to put more serious issues in his cross-hairs.

Adams writes, "In November, Jonathan Lopez attempted to give his informative speech on God and the ways he has seen God act miraculously in his life and in the lives of others. In the middle of that speech, Lopez spoke of God and morality and read the dictionary definition of marriage. He also read two verses from the Bible."

Curiously, Adams neglects to mention what the two Bible verses were, but it's clear where this was headed. The teacher, Adams relates, is a supporter of gay marriage.

The teacher, John Matteson, left a note with the student: "prostyelsyszing [sic] is inappropriate in a public school."

You could make a pretty good case that any teacher who refers to students "fascist bastards" -- as this teacher apparently did twice -- should be fired. What a jerk. Yet Adams fails to seriously explore matters of free speech in the context of tax-funded institutions.

Adams equates the teacher's conduct with censorship with a "chilling effect on First Amendment expression." (I would be interested to learn whether Adams is similarly committed to overturning censorship of pornography and unsavory language.)

The basic issue, then, is whether the student has a Constitutionally protected right of free speech to rail against homosexuals in a tax-funded classroom. The only possible answer is that no answer is possible. Forcing others to fund religiously motivated attacks on homosexuals violates their rights of free speech -- people have the right not to fund speech they find offensive. But excluding such speech violates the rights of the student and his supporters, who also pay (or will pay) taxes. Forced wealth transfers for the propagation of ideas inherently violates people's rights.

The only solution that consistently upholds people's right of free speech -- along with their rights of property -- is to stop the forced wealth transfers. But Adams, along with practically all conservatives, show no interest in that. Instead, many conservatives look to increase tax funding of "faith-based initiatives" and the like.

On a free market, should schools allow speeches, in speech class, of a religious or bigoted nature? I think so. However, a school that allows attacks on homosexuals is going to have a hard time banning racist speeches. My sense is that the student should be able to meet the assignment according to his own judgment, and if he's an idiot, he will earn a reputation as such. Teachers obviously can grade down for lack of cogent argument. Surely there are lines that no school would like to cross, such as neo-Nazi marches on campus. But these are tricky issues best left to the boards and leaders of private institutions.

Huckabee on 'Anti-Religious' Stimulus

Along with Jim DeMint, Mike Huckabee is primarily concerned that the so-called "stimulus" package is "anti-religious."

Andy Barr writes for Politico (via Paul Hsieh), "The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a 'school or department of divinity.'"

But declining to force people to fund religious institutions against their will is not "anti-religious," and forcing them to do so would violate their religious freedom.

The problem with the "stimulus" bill is not that it is "anti-religious," but that it massively violates rights through hundreds of billions of dollars of forced wealth transfers.

'Attack on People of Faith'

Senator Jim DeMint told Neil Cavuto:

Well, this morning, I went to the National Prayer Breakfast.

Barack Obama spoke about the importance of faith. Tony Blair spoke about the importance of faith. It was a great experience, over 3,000 people from all over the world.

Then, I get back here, and we're working on this so-called stimulus bill that would prohibit any religious activity in any college or university facility that uses any of these funds for modernization or renovation.

It is just a phrase that I think the ACLU had stuck in this bill, because they are the real proponents of keeping it in there, that would really take advantage of religious freedom, Bible studies, Fellowship of Christian Athletes, whether it is on a student center, a dorm, an auditorium where prayer might be offered.

But this is hardly a fundamental problem with the alleged stimulus package. The root problem is that it massively violates rights through billions of dollars of forced wealth transfers. Yes, it violates the rights of the religious to force them to fund activities that exclude religion. But it also violates the rights of others to force them to fund religious ideas and activities.

To his credit, DeMint opposes the "stimulus plan" in general, not just for religious reasons.

Jesus On the Dole

Apparently God needs more welfare. Via Diana Hsieh:

Declaring that "there is a force for good greater than government," President Barack Obama on Thursday established a White House office of faith-based initiatives with a broader mission than the one overseen by his Republican predecessor.

The article discusses the problem of tax-funded religious groups hiring on religious grounds. But that is merely a peripheral problem. The gigantic problem is simply the forcible transfer of funds to faith-based groups. Any such program inherently violates the rights of conscience and property of those who do not wish to finance such organizations.

Obviously the other major problem is that the expanded program will bring religious organizations more under the power and influence of federal politicians. He who pays the piper calls the tune. The bipartisan faith-based initiatives threaten to undermine the separation of church and state that has significantly contributed to the relative liberty of the West.

Everyone who cares about religious liberty, believers and nonbelievers alike, must criticize Obama's effort at every opportunity. Faith-based welfare should not be expanded, it should not be reformed, it should be completely eliminated, in the name of liberty.

Bailouts Versus Free Speech

Fox News reports:

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

However, forcing people to fund schools that do allow "religious worship" violates their free speech rights. We have the right not to finance the propagation of ideas with which we disagree.

There is, of course, an obvious solution to this that violates no one's rights of free speech. Reject the bailout.

Toward European Secularism?

Recently I received a bizarre e-mail stating: "Obama will soon discover that government cannot legalize everything that the Bible condemns and then ask for God to bless America. Even though Obama is clever at wrapping himself with religiosity, his presidency could very well lead Americans toward joining European secularism."

I take this to mean that the writer -- and no doubt various others -- think the American government ought to outlaw everything the Bible condemns; e.g., homosexuality, false idols, back talking to parents, etc.

Recently Leonard Peikoff asked why Americans are so much more religious than Europeans. Part of the answer is that European secularism is synonymous with socialism, or at least socialism-light. In other words, the choices are God-centered religion or state-centered religion; sacrificing the individual to God or the state.

Many religious Americans rightly reject the subjectivism and socialism of the left. Unfortunately, because religion offers no more tenable moral foundation, they are increasingly turning to the subjectivism and socialism of the right.

America ought not move toward European secularism. America should move toward American secularism, and more particularly a secularism that recognizes the sovereignty of the individual.

Atheism Is Not a Religion

Often we hear religious apologists claim that atheism is just another religion, and that one must have "faith" to be an atheist just as one must have faith to worship Jesus.

But atheism is not a positive belief system at all. It merely rules out belief in God and the supernatural. Atheism is no more a religion than "a-Santa-Claus-ism" is. It is possible and desirable for an atheist to build a system of beliefs rooted in the evidence and integrated by reason. Such beliefs do not compose a religion, either, nor are they expressions of religious faith.

Religious pluralism -- the ability of people of many faiths or no faith to live together in harmony -- rests on the idea that people can reach some common ground beyond religion, a common recognition of facts and reason available to each of our natural faculties. What happens when no such common ground exists?

A recent letter in the Free Press illustrates the problems:

The barriers to truth on this issue regarding prayer by government officials are primarily psychological, not logical. Most of the confusion is born from a misunderstanding of proper "church" and state separation, along with two logical impossibilities -- actual neutrality in government and genuine religious pluralism. Both assertions are nonsense. ... [A]theism actually presupposes and surreptitiously relies on theism to even have the appearance of cogency.

In other words, absent a common ground of reason, people of each religion must attempt to enforce their faith by law, to the extent of discouraging (by means unstated) other religions. The word for such a system is theocracy.

Rick Warren's Fine Line

I disliked quite a lot about Rick Warren's prayer at Barack Obama's inauguration. But he did have one excellent line, that we are united not by race and not by religion, but by our commitment to freedom. To the degree that the religious right -- and the religious left -- takes that insight seriously, we can all get along fine in the political arena.

This is an historic day, and I am proud to bear witness to it. Long live liberty, long live justice, for all.

'Call to Service': Means and Motives

Colorado Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll preached yesterday at the First Baptist Church in Denver, "All of us have a call to service."

He told the Rocky Mountain News, "I think here I have a lot more freedom to make appeals based on moral grounds. Across the street, I have to couch them in different terms and still try to say the same things."

This raises three issues: the connection between religion and altruism, the meaning of service, and the difference between voluntary service and involuntary servitude.

The first point needs little elaboration. Christians call for service to God and service to mankind. Collectivists of the 20th Century dropped the first part but kept the second. Modern collectivists increasingly return to their religious roots. But, to make full sense out of this, the second point is essential.

The idea of "service" packages together fundamentally disparate kinds of things. If a father drives his daughter's Girl Scout troop into the forest and helps to lead a camping expedition, he is performing a service to the group, because he loves his daughter and wants to see her do well. If someone raises funds for a cancer research organization, the person is answering the "call to service" by helping to fund something the donor regards as important. The college student who delivers pizza provides a service to his clients and gets paid for it. A student who drops out of school to move to Africa to care for the poor, thereby sacrificing her favored career for a religious calling, is performing service, too.

Many would split service into the two categories, "for monetary gain" and "not for monetary gain." However, that's not really the fundamental division. A father who works so that he can buy his daughter food acts from basically the same motivation as the father who volunteers to take his daughter's group camping. The motivation is rational self-interest, taking into account the full scope of the father's interests, which extend far beyond material gain. Rational self-interest routinely involves providing services to others, either for money or on a volunteer basis. The other basic sort of service is self-sacrificial, done against one's rational self-interest.

Carroll's case blurs this distinction. An adult who volunteers to tutor children in the community often acts from rational self-interest; the assistance offers the satisfaction of seeing a child do well and contribute positively to the community. But a child who gives up his studies to work constantly at the soup kitchen would be sacrificing his interests and his future.

Craig Biddle explains the difference in the context of business:

[B]ecause pushers of altruism frequently equivocate on the meaning of the concept of “service,” it is crucial for advocates of capitalism to grasp the actual meaning of this concept as it relates to altruism.

Altruism does not call merely for “serving” others; it calls for self-sacrificially serving others. Otherwise, Michael Dell would have to be considered more altruistic than Mother Teresa. Why? Because Michael Dell serves millions more people than Mother Teresa ever did. The difference, of course, is in the way he serves people. Whereas Mother Teresa “served” people by exchanging her time and effort for nothing, Michael Dell serves people by trading with them -- by exchanging value for value to mutual advantage -- an exchange in which both sides gain.

Trading value for value is not the same thing as giving up values for nothing. There is a black-and-white difference between pursuing values and giving them up, between achieving values and relinquishing them, between exchanging a lesser value for a greater one and vice versa.

Biddle's article addresses capitalism, so he's focused on market exchanges, but the same basic point about pursuing one's greater value applies across the board.

The third point about service is that it matters very much whether it's voluntary (whether self-interested or self-sacrificing) or forced. When Carroll preaches at church, he cannot force anybody to do anything. He must rely on persuasion. At the state capitol, he is involved in passing laws that are ultimately backed up by men with guns. Service at the point of a gun is not really "service" at all -- it is servitude.

Sears Promotes Faith-Based Politics

Alan Sears argues "the fight for religious liberty is the fight for life," i.e., the fight to ban abortion. In other words, Sears, a former federal prosecutor, believes that the "liberty" of some permits them to impose their religious faith by force of law on others.

Sears quotes Madison, who said that one's duty to God "is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society." Sears neglects to mention that Madison also endorsed the separation of church and state and opposed "suffering any Sect to invade [the equal rights] of another."

Sears's entire case rests on the claim that a fertilized egg is a person, and as such properly has all the same rights as a born infant. In general, the proper purpose of government is to protect people's rights, which obviously is compatible with religious liberty. The problem with Sears's case is that a fertilized egg is not a person, and he makes no attempt to prove that it is.

Indeed, nobody from the anti-abortion side has seriously addressed the arguments that Diana Hsieh and I reviewed last year. That is because the case for outlawing abortion -- imposing criminal penalties for it -- rests on religious faith. It is not religious liberty, but religious tyranny, that seeks to violate the rights of actual people based on the faith-based fantasy that a fertilized egg is a person.

George Mason on Freedom of Religion

Recently I reviewed William Martin's comments about the alleged Christian foundation of America. Here I quote the words of George Mason, a "Father of the Bill of Rights."

In his Virginia Declaration of Rights, Mason writes:

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

This again illustrates that America was a "Christian nation" only in the weak sense that most of its founders were Christians, not in the sense that the government was Christian in nature. Here Mason and the people of Virginia declare their support for religious liberty, which requires a separation between church and government.

True, Mason attributes certain virtues to Christianity, but he does not claim that Christianity is the only road to virtue, and indeed he suggests that people other than Christians can reach similar ends. The implication of Mason's view here is that there is some moral foundation beneath Christianity, open to reason apart from religion. This is but a short step to my view, which is that the proper moral foundation is open to reason and rests entirely apart from religion.

Martin On America's Founding: Separation of Church and State

Last time I reviewed William Martin's comments on John Adams's views on religion and government. Here I link to three related articles that Martin wrote for Opposing Views.

First Martin reviews Jefferson's famous letter to the the Danbury Baptist Association in which he praises the First Amendment as "building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Martin also further discusses the evolving views of James Madison, who also endorsed "the total separation of the church from the state.”

Later, Martin reviews:

During... the Civil War, a group of prominent churchmen calling themselves the National Reform Association began pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would amount to rewriting the preamble “acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, The Lord Jesus Christ as the Governor among the Nations, and His revealed will as of supreme authority, in order to constitute a Christian government..."

Neither Lincoln nor Congress took no action on the proposal, and subsequent efforts likewise went nowhere.

Martin On America's Founding: Adams

Here I continue my review of William Martin's comments on America's founding. In his article on the early presidents, Martin summarizes:

The Founding Fathers were cosmopolitan intellectuals devoted to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, but they were not, for the most part, humanistic atheists or opposed to religion. On the contrary, they regarded morality as indispensable to a healthy state and religion as a primary foundation of morality, as well as of charity and concern for one’s fellows. But the state itself should be secular.

Martin quotes John Adams, who lauded government "founded on the natural authority of the people alone... without a pretense of miracle or mystery;" such a government favors "the rights of mankind."

Martin also quotes the 1797 treaty with Tripoli as signed by President Adams:

As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims]... it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between the two countries.

"Not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Clearly the nation's founders were influenced both by the Enlightenment and by Christianity. The simplistic argument that the nation was founded on Christianity because many of the founders were Christian neglects to sort out the causes. What was unique to America's founding was the Enlightenment, not Christianity, which had dominated Western politics for centuries.

Martin on America's Founding: Jefferson and Madison

William Martin has written a series of short articles for Opposing Views countering claims that America is a Christian nation.

In his article on Jefferson and Madison, Martin recounts the story of Jefferson's Bill to Establish Religious Freedom. Jefferson argued, among other things, that people should not be forced to support religion and there should be no religious test for public office. Jeffersons' bill failed in Virginia in 1779, Martin notes, but passed in 1786.

And here's what Martin has to say about Madison:

Madison was not concerned solely with oppression. Government support of religion, he insisted, would lead inevitably to the corruption and weakening of religion itself. Fifteen centuries of governmental entanglement with Christianity had made clear that neither institution benefited from the relationship. He noted that ecclesiastical establishments “have [in some instances] been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.... A just government... will be best supported by... neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.”

If the claim that America is a Christian nation reduces to the claim that most Americans have adhered to the Christian religion, then the claim is trivial. If the claim is that America was founded to promote Christianity, then the claim is false.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

I sent the following letter to The Denver Post in reply to an article by Kathleen Parker (which is reproduced also at TownHall.com). As I didn't hear back from the Post, I'm publishing the letter here.

Pelosi Should Endorse Separation of Church and State

Kathleen Parker is right about one thing ("Pope Pelosi at the gate," August 27): House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ought not invoke faith to answer criticisms from the religious right. Instead, she should endorse the separation of church and state and refuse to enact laws based on religious dogma.

Parker's view that "human life begins at conception" implies support for Colorado's Amendment 48; she's saying that fertilized eggs should be granted full legal rights. But that measure, if fully implemented, would impose life in prison or the death penalty for women and their doctors for abortion, outlaw popular fertility treatments, ban the birth-control pill and other forms of birth control, ban promising medical research, and impose severe police controls over our sex lives. (Diana Hsieh and I critique the measure in "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life" at SecularGovernment.us.)

Notice Parker's missing link: she jumps from the obvious truth that "human development begins at fertilization" to the patent absurdity that a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a born infant, with the same rights. That is a gap that only religious faith can fill. Democrats and Republicans alike should reject such faith-based politics.

Sincerely,
Ari Armstrong

More Tax Funds for Religious Education

On July 27 I discussed the indirect tax subsidy of Colorado Christian University. I pointed out that, typically, when the left imposes coercive wealth transfers, the "religious right does not oppose this government initiation of force, but instead insists on its share of the loot."

I have two more recent cases to share.

Gina Liggett alerted me to an effort in Louisiana to teach God-based "science." New Scientist published an article on the matter:

Barbara Forrest knew the odds were stacked against her... Her opponents included lobbyists, church leaders and a crowd of home-schooled children. "They were wearing stickers, clapping, cheering and standing in the aisles." ... That was on 21 May, when Forrest testified in the Louisiana state legislature on the dangers hidden in the state's proposed Science Education Act. She had spent weeks trying to muster opposition to the bill on the grounds that it would allow teachers and school boards across the state to present non-scientific alternatives to evolution, including ideas related to intelligent design (ID) - the proposition that life is too complicated to have arisen without the help of a supernatural agent. ...

Forrest's testimony notwithstanding, the bill was passed by the state's legislature - by a majority of 94 to 3 in the House and by unanimous vote in the Senate. On 28 June, Louisiana's Republican governor, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, signed the bill into law. The development has national implications, not least because Jindal is rumoured to be on Senator John McCain's shortlist as a potential running mate in his bid for the presidency.

The broader issue is that evolution is demonstrated through overwhelming evidence, while "intelligent design" is the anti-scientific product of religious faith.

But regardless of the scientific facts, it is morally wrong to force people who disapprove of faith-based education to finance it. Yes, it is also morally wrong to force religionists who disapprove of evolution to fund its teaching, but only the former case also violates the separation of church and state. If people want to privately finance the teaching of Creationism, that is scientifically groundless but completely within their proper legal rights.

Here in Colorado, a school-prayer measure has failed to make the ballot, according to the Aurora Sentinel:

An Aurora church has abandoned its efforts to get prayer in public schools through a ballot initiative in the upcoming election.

Final Harvest Christian Center had planned to ask voters this fall to approve a measure that would give students five minutes at the start of each school day to meditate, pray by themselves or pray with others.

Obviously, students are perfectly free to spend five minutes (or five hours) praying to Jesus or saying "ohm" before they get to school. The clear purpose of the measure is to bring religion into the tax-funded schools. While the effort failed, its existence helps to show that the much of the religious right has no problem whatsoever using tax funds for its faith-based ends.

Tax Funds for Colorado Christian University

As much as I detest Michael Huttner and hate to agree with him about anything, he's right about one thing: forcibly transferring tax funds to students at Colorado Christian University is "a clear violation of the separation of church and state," as he told The Denver Post.

The story reports, "Colorado violated the U.S. Constitution when it blocked taxpayer-funded financial aid to students at religious schools that the state calls "pervasively sectarian," a federal appellate court in Denver ruled Wednesday."

What is Colorado Christian University (CCU) all about? The title reveals its mission. Its web page elucidates:

FAITH It's the foundation. Faith is the starting point for learning, understanding, growing, and expanding your horizons. At Colorado Christian University, faith is a critical part of your college experience that speaks to character development, integrity, and becoming the person God intended you to be. It's what enables CCU to offer a complete education that trains you professionally, equips you spiritually, and encourages you to build confidence in Christ. Faith is the first step to fulfilling your dreams. Then it requires action.

CCU affirms its "Biblical Foundation:"

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is - His good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:2 (NIV)

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." John 1:17 (NIV)

The college describes its vision and mission:

Vision
We envision graduates who think critically and creatively, lead with high ethical and professional standards, embody the character and compassion of Jesus Christ, and who thereby are prepared to impact the world.

Mission
Colorado Christian University cultivates knowledge and love of God in a Christ-centered community of learners and scholars, with an enduring commitment to the integration of exemplary academics, spiritual formation, and engagement with the world.

The college also clearly states its evangelical mission:

Colorado Christian University unites with the broad, historic evangelical faith rather than affiliating with any specific denomination. In this commitment, the University embraces the following declarations of the National Association of Evangelicals:

1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.
6. We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.
7. We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

CCU makes one good point: because "state scholarship funds had already been awarded to students enrolled at Methodist and Roman Catholic universities," it wasn't fair to exclude only one sort of religious college. But of course the solution to that problem is to forcibly transfer wealth to no religious institution, not to all of them.

Notably, Colorado Christian does not dispute the state's claim that it is a "pervasively sectarian institution." Quite obviously it is.

CCU's claim that a denial of the funds violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments is laughable.

The First Amendment, as Jefferson wrote, was intended to serve the following purpose:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

Forcing people to fund Colorado Christian University (directly or indirectly), when they disagree with the mission of that university, violates their rights of conscience, religion, and property.

The Fourteenth Amendment states, "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Forcing people to fund a religious institution against their beliefs clearly violates their liberty and rights to property.

This case demonstrates the perverse dance between the religious right and the socialist left. The left favors welfare (coercive wealth transfers), including welfare for the poor and welfare for students. The religious right does not oppose this government initiation of force, but instead insists on its share of the loot.

Against the likes of Huttner, I emphasize that it is also morally wrong to force Christians to fund welfare through secular institutions, including scholarships for schools that teach doctrines offensive to Christians. Nevertheless, existing welfare ought not breach the separation of church and state.

While the Bible is open to radically diverse interpretations, you'd think that Colorado Christian University, with its Biblical Foundation and all, might at least pay attention to God's advice: "You shall not steal." Shame on you.

The Faith-Based Welfare Debate

The New York Times has reviewed the presidential debate over faith-based welfare (via Politics Without God).

On one side of the debate, Obama fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be able to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion:

Mr. Obama’s position that religious organizations would not be able to consider religion in their hiring for such programs would constitute a deal-breaker for many evangelicals, said several evangelical leaders, who represent a political constituency Mr. Obama has been trying to court.

"For those of who us who believe in protecting the integrity of our religious institutions, this is a fundamental right," said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals. "He's rolling back the Bush protections. That's extremely disappointing."

You mean if churches line up for handouts of forcibly transfered wealth, they have to jump through political hoops? Who'd have imagined?

Churches do not have a "fundamental right" to spend tax dollars free of political oversight. However, individuals do have a fundamental right not to finance religious organizations as a matter of freedom of conscience and property rights.

On the other side of the debate, McCain fully supports faith-based welfare, but he thinks recipients of the funds should not be subject to national hiring guidelines: "A McCain campaign spokesman, Brian Rogers, said Mr. McCain 'disagrees with Senator Obama that hiring at faith-based groups should be subject to government oversight.'"

Some readers might have noticed that both sides of the debate are saying very nearly the same thing.

The only person quoted by the article articulating the alternative of liberty is the Reverend Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who told the Times, "It ought to be shut down, not continued."

Amen, brother.

Coalition for Secular Government

Diana Hsieh has announced the formation of the Coalition for Secular Government. It links to several interesting documents, hosts a blog, and announces the following mission:

The Coalition for Secular Government advocates government solely based on secular principles of individual rights. The protection of a person's basic rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- including freedom of religion and conscience -- requires a strict separation of church and state.

Consequently:

We oppose any laws or policies based on religious scripture or dogma, such as restrictions on abortion and government discrimination against homosexuals.

We oppose any government promotion of religion, such as the teaching of intelligent design in government schools and tax-funded "faith-based initiatives."

We oppose any special exemptions or privileges based on religion by government, such as exemptions for churches from the tax law applicable to other non-profits.

The only proper government is a secular government devoted to the protection of individual rights.

The Coalition for Secular Government seeks to educate the public about the necessary secular foundation of a free society, particularly the principles of individual rights and separation of church and state. ...

I look forward to working with the Coalition against Amendment 48 for the reasons stated by the blog.

Certain Unalienable Rights

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Various Christians take this line from the Declaration to mean that America was founded on Christianity. But of course Jefferson was a deist, and belief in some sort of creator or unifying force was common even among the Greeks. Even Spinoza could talk of God, basically as a synonym for nature. Life was in fact created, and the creator is natural law, including the process of evolution.

Jefferson before all promoted reason: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

He was no great fan of organized religion: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

And he called for the separation of church and state: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

People have the absolute moral right -- and deserve the fully-protected political right -- to practice whatever religion they want, or no religion, however they choose, provided they don't initiate force against anyone else.

Faith-Based Welfare for Obama's Former Church

Jeff Goldblatt reports for Fox:

FOX News has learned that over the last 15 years, Trinity [United Church of Christ in Chicago] has received at least $15 million in grants from the federal government...

Records show this money supported a variety of outreach: everything from low income housing to nutritional programs for needy kids to money for HIV/AIDS education. [Rev. Jeremiah] Wright blames the government for intentionally infecting the African-American community with that deadly virus.

I'm sure that the church provides welfare as well as many secular organizations. That's not the point. The point is that I would never voluntarily donate a cent to that church for any reason whatever, and I'm confident that many Americans share the opinion. Forcing people to fund a church against their wishes is a violation of their freedom of conscience and an intrusion of politics into religion and vice versa.

Evangelical Priorities

Frank Pastore criticizes something called the "Evangelical Manifesto" (which I have not yet read), offering his own idea of evangelical priorities.

Pastore notes that "hunger, poverty, disease and the environment" are important -- how they should relate to politics he does not specify -- but adds, "As evangelicals, what could possibly trump the right to life and the preservation of marriage and the family?" In other words, Pastore's top two concerns are outlawing at least most abortions and interfering in contract law for homosexuals.

Pastore does call for "free markets," without specifying what that means. He points to today's mixed economy.

He makes clear that evangelicals should work to conform governmental policy to the will of God: "Politics is theology applied. One of the ways we collectively 'love our neighbor as our self' is through public policy."

When it comes to the use of political force, Pastore should keep his "love" to himself.

Romney Returns to Religion

After reviewing Mitt Romney's speech on faith and related comments, I concluded that "Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion." Now Romney, who may still play some role in November's election, has returned to the topic.

Romney sensibly asserts that religious "non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty. If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief -- to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience -- it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God."

However, Romney's characterization of atheists as "non-believers" rubs me the wrong way. I'm not fundamentally a "non-believer;" I'm a believer in human reason and objective morality based on human life, liberty, and happiness. Moreover, Romney's reference to a "coerciver monopoly" refers both to socialistic regimes and to theocratic ones. This undermines his subsequent statement that "freedom requires religion." Obviously, religion often has been hostile to freedom.

Romney quotes Jefferson regarding liberty as a "gift of God." But the key distinction is that liberty arises from our human nature, not from the arbitrary whim of some king or ruler. The "Creator" of the Bill of Rights need not be God (and for Jefferson it was not the Christian God). And Romney quotes John Adams to the effect that self-governance requires "morality and religion." Again, plenty of people with religion have not advocated self-governance; quite the opposite. An objective morality must be separated from religion, else it and freedom become arbitrary whims of some religious decree, rather than of some king. The United States arose not in the era of religion but in the era of the Enlightenment, when religion gave way to reason.

All of Romney's talk of "freedom" cannot erase the fact that he wants to reduce freedom by imposing faith-based political controls. Freedom of religion is essential, but it is meaningless without freedom of action within the context of individual rights.

And when Romney starts talking about "the holy sacrifice of young lives," he strays from the American ideal of self-defense, in which young lives are preserved to the greatest extent possible within the context of national security, and moves toward holy war, in which human life is sacrificed to religious causes.

D'Souza Versus Rights

Dinesh D'Souza is a cheerleader for religion, and most any religion will do. His favored religion is Christianity, but short of that, he prefers a religious orientation to a secular one. In a recent article, he continues to find common cause with the Blame America First crowd of the radical left, discussing Islamist terrorism not in the context of problems within modern Islam that cause such terrorism, but in the context of alleged American failures.

D'Souza claims that Americans who advocate "the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on... are producing a powerful 'blowback' from the House of Islam."

The first thing to notice is that American domestic politics are hardly the legitimate concern of non-American Muslims. I agree with D'Souza that Islamists hate America for its freedoms, but D'Souza is wrong to suggest that any part of the fault lies with America. Certainly we should not alter our domestic policies in a shortsighted attempt to prevent "blowback" from Islamist terrorists.

D'Souza, in criticizing leftists, also packages items that do not fit together logically. I think that people have the right to blaspheme. Women have the right to get an abortion. Consenting adults have the right to trade sex for money (as I've argued,) produce and view pornography, engage in homosexuality, and partner romantically with whom they choose. I do not advocate "the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square," but neither do I think that Christian symbols should dominate that square. I think that non-abusive parents have the right to raise their children and to set policies concerning sex education and contraceptives.

What is the alternative to the liberties that I endorse? To blaspheme means "to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things)." For example, the phrases "God damn it" and "God does not exist" are blasphemous. The alternative to the right to blaspheme is the imposition of legal penalties for blasphemy; for example, some Americans call for the death penalty for blasphemers. The alternative to the right to abortion is the imposition of legal penalties on doctors and women involved with abortion. The alternative to legal prostitution is today's hypocritical prohibition that fosters violence and disease. (However, most American "liberals" do not favor legal prostitution, as D'Souza suggests.) The alternative to legal pornography is censorship. While calls for censorship are in vogue among both the left and the right, they are incompatible with freedom of speech. The alternatives to gay rights and gay unions are legal penalties for homosexuality (in the "House of Islam" homosexuals often are killed) and discriminatory contract law.

In a future article, perhaps D'Souza can explain precisely what legal penalties he believes Americans should adopt against blasphemy, abortion, pornography, and homosexuality. Otherwise, perhaps he can explain why he thinks some such liberties deserve legal protections while others don't.

Michael Medved's Anti-Atheist Bias

If somebody claimed that a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Mormon, or member of any other mainstream religion, was not qualified to hold political office merely by virtue of that religious affiliation, regardless of the broader moral and political beliefs and statements of the candidate, the critic's claims would be laughed off as silly prejudice. While it's true that Mitt Romney's Mormon religion hurt his candidacy, it's also true that Mike Huckabee's slights against Mormonism hurt Huckabee's candidacy.

But, in the world of Christian political apologetics, Michael Medved can grotesquely misrepresent the nature of atheism and claim with a straight face that no atheist should be elected president. Medved writes:

Actually, there's little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country.

I agree that there's little chance of an atheist being elected as president any time in the near future. But Medved's reasons for why that's a good thing are absurd.

Medved's first error, contained in the quoted paragraph above, is to presume that atheism is a unifying doctrine; atheists, by his lights, recognize and support "their own." But atheism is not an ideology. It does not indicate what a person believes. It indicates only one thing that a person does not believe. I have more in common with many Christians than I do with some atheists. I could develop a long list of Christians that I would support politically over a list of particular atheists.

So what are Medved's three reasons?

First, he claims that an atheist president would suffer "hollowness and hypocrisy at state occassions." "For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?" Yet I've heard atheists give very powerful, highly moving talks. On the topic of Thanksgiving, Craig Biddle writes, "Rational, productive people -- whether philosophers, scientists, inventors, artists, businessmen, military strategists, friends, family, or yourself -- are who deserve to be thanked for the goods on which your life, liberty, and happiness depend." While Biddle's strong criticisms of religion would not be appropriate for a president's speech, his answer regarding whom should be thanked could be appropriately adapted to a presidential address. To take another example, Alex Epstein has written a moving tribute to America's veterans.

Second, Medved claims, an atheist could not connect with the people. Medved writes:

[E]mbrace of Jewish or Mormon practices doesn't show contempt for the Protestant or Catholic faith of the majority, but affirmation of atheism does. ... A chief executive who publicly discards the core belief in God that drives the life and work of most of his countrymen can never achieve that sort of connection. A president with a mandate doesn't have to be a regular church-goer, or even a convinced believer; but he can't openly reject the religious sensibility of nearly all his predecessors and nearly all his fellow citizens. A leader who touts his non-belief will, even with the best of intentions, give the impression that he looks down on the people who elected him.

But holding that a person's belief in God is unwarranted is not the same thing as "looking down" on the person. For example, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and yet she held and expressed enormous respect for the American "sense of life" and for the common sense often displayed by the American public. Indeed, often Rand was most critical of the atheistic (and socialistic) elite.

The difference between atheists and religionists is, in this context, hardly more significant than the difference among peoples of different religions or different political ideologies. For example, as an atheist, I think that Catholics are wrong to believe in God. But when I was a Protestant, I was taught as a child that Catholics will burn for all eternity in Hell. (Only some people in my church held that view.) Obviously, the tensions between people of different religions can be much more severe than the tensions between atheists and religionists. To take another example, the differences between Barack Obama and conservative Christians are enormous.

Finally, Medved argues, atheists cannot win the war against Islamist terrorism. "[T]he ongoing war on terror represents a furious battle of ideas and we face devastating handicaps if we attempt to beat something with nothing." Here Medved makes two errors. First, he assumes that atheists believe in nothing, which is ridiculous. Again, atheism does not define one's positive beliefs. Second, Medved supposes that religionists are better-equipped to take on the terrorists. But Bush has failed to stop terrorist advances precisely because of his faith-based war, which places altruistic nation-building ahead of American defense. Numerous publications by the Ayn Rand Institute point to the problems with Bush's approach and the path to a rational alternative.

Americans should not elect an atheist because he or she is an atheist, any more than Americans should elect a Christian because he or she is a Christian. Instead, Americans should elect somebody who understands the nature of individual rights and is prepared to defend the rights of every American, regardless of religious belief.

'You Have No Right to Be Here'

A state legislator told an atheist at a public hearing, "You have no right to be here!"

Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune reports (via Pharyngula via Mike at Obloggers):

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous... it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat... You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

Sherman, a Green candidate with whom I no doubt disagree on many issues, relates the following about the story at his web page:

On Wednesday, April 2nd (my 55th birthday), I testified in Springfield before the House State Government Administration Committee. My testimony was that Governor Blagojevich's plan to donate one million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago is unconstitutional. For background, see the March 4th update, below. Representative Monique Davis responded for the committee. She accused me of hating god. She said that the state should donate the million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church because the people of Illinois believe that there is a god. At a time when we are in the midst of a decades-long pervasive epidemic of Roman Catholic priests raping America's children, Representative Davis said that I was a danger to the children of Illinois because I tell them that there is no god. She said that I had no right to inform children of that perspective. She then ordered me out of the witness chair, screaming, repeatedly, "Get out of that seat," because I'm an atheist. Made me feel like Rosa Parks, who also was told, "Get out of that seat," and arrested when she didn't give up her seat on the bus to Whitey. Now that [African Americans] like Representative Monique Davis have political power, it seems that they have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn't them who are being discriminated against. On the 40th anniversary, today, of his murder, I'm sure that my boyhood hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been appalled at Rep. Davis' bigotry. Eric Zorn wrote a column, yesterday, about the exchange between Rep. Davis and myself. His column is complete with both a printed transcript of part of the exchange between Rep. Davis and me, as well as a link to an audio recording of most of the exchange. Here is a link to Eric Zorn's column. Here is a direct link to the audio recording, courtesy of Eric Zorn...

In this story, Sherman's shrill web comments and his political views are irrelevant; he has as much right to testify at a public hearing as anyone. Needless to say, any legislator who told someone of any religious faith to "get out of that seat" would gain instant national infamy.

As an aside, though, apparently the church in question burned down, and the subsidy was intended to help rebuild the church. I have to wonder why this wasn't covered by insurance. In my view, the government has no business subsidizing the rebuilding of any private facility that the government did not itself destroy.

Scripture and the Death Penalty

A recent exchange of letters in the Rocky Mountain News illustrates the utter futility of arguing for or against any narrow political policy based on scripture, especially in criticism of some standard or wide-spread Christian view. While it can be interesting to look at whether Christians follow the text of the Bible as an afterthought or minor polemical point, scripture can never be the center of discussion.

On March 4, Roger Balmer argued:

With regard to the death penalty, what is there about the following verses from the Bible that "Christian" America doesn't seem to understand: "Thou shalt not kill." "Recompense to no man evil for evil." "Love your enemy." "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath." "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Of course, this was unpersuasive to a Christian who advocates the death penalty. On March 17, the Reverend Douglas Van Dorn (apparently of the Reformed Baptist Church) replied:

With regard to picking and choosing some verses from the Bible over
others instead of taking "the whole council of God" together, what is there about these other verses that some Christians don't seem to understand: "Whoever does [insert any number of sins] shall be put to death." "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." "They were given authority to kill with the sword."

There are only two answers. Either people intentionally create another God besides the one who wrote the whole Bible, or they ignorantly conflate laws that respect individuals ("Love your enemy," "Thou shalt not murder") with the lex talionis ("an eye for an eye") which respects the state, thereby inventing contradiction where none in fact exists. In the process, they deny the words of the New Testament that the one in authority "is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:4).

So let us only briefly note the (rather large) problem that Van Dorn's phrase, "insert any number of sins," includes "sins" such as adultery, homosexuality, and dishonoring one's parents. If Van Dorn does not promote the death penalty for those cases, then he has fallen into the same alleged error of which he accuses Balmer. But that, as I have suggested, is irrelevant to whether the death penalty should remain in force. (My point here is not to argue for or against the death penalty, but merely to note that scripture cannot and should not answer the question as a political matter.)

To take another example, I ran a quick Google search of "bible abortion." Of the top four hits, two pages -- one and two -- claim that the Bible prohibits abortion. The others -- one and two -- claim that the Bible does not prohibit abortion.

As Sam Harris notes, in many cases the Bible says whatever its readers think it says. (On other matters, such as the exhortation to kill homosexuals, Biblical passages seem rather clear, though few readers of such passages take them seriously.)

But it simply does not matter what the Bible says -- about the death penalty, abortion, or anything else -- we do not and should not live in a theocracy, and political policy ought not have any basis whatsoever in religious teachings. I don't care if the Bible said, "The United States of America, and every state thereof, shall institute the death penalty for crimes of premeditated murder between the years 1800 and 2100 of the Common Era, and this passage shall take precedence over every other passage of scripture;" that would not be a legitimate reason to maintain (or repeal) the death penalty.

Any legitimate political policy rests on a secular foundation. While some secular reasons might have something in common with various religious beliefs, if the policy is not separable from religious doctrine, it is not legitimate.

Will the 'Wall' Fall?

Troy A. Eid claims that we shouldn't take the separation of church and state so seriously because, after all, George Washington didn't. Eid writes for the February 15 Rocky Mountain News:

A bold new book, co-authored by a prominent Colorado attorney, takes direct aim at this conventional wisdom. In Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State, Denver's own Joe Smith and Tara Ross, a Texas-based lawyer and writer, counter Jefferson's wall-of-separation approach with that of the best-known Founder of them all, George Washington. ...

According to Washington, there is no wall. Instead, government should broadly encourage religious expression in order to strengthen public virtue - what might be called "values" today. The First Amendment, read in the way its drafters intended, means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs.

Smith and Ross carefully document their claim that Washington, not Jefferson, was in a far better position to interpret constitutional history based on real-life experience.

Ironically, Jefferson was minister to France from 1785 to 1789 and did not participate in the Constitutional Convention, or in the congressional debates that produced the Bill of Rights. Washington, in contrast, presided over that convention and was intimately involved in the process from beginning to end.

Notably, "Troy A. Eid is the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado. The views expressed are his own and do not represent the U.S. Department of Justice."

Eid was "Nominated by [three guesses] President Bush..."

On March 3, Robert R. Tiernan of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Colorado Chapter, replied:

The First Amendment was not the subject of the Constitutional Convention over which George Washington presided. Rather, the Amendment was later debated in Congress after the Constitution was ratified and Washington had become president. With Jefferson's help and advice, then-Rep. James Madison, a strict church/state separatist, marshaled the measure through the Congress and it was later ratified by the states as part of the Bill of Rights.

Beyond the historical debate, the First Amendment states clearly, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Eid, on the other hand, claims that the "First Amendment... means that the state must not discriminate for or against any particular sect or set of religious beliefs." Eid has skipped right over the "establishment" clause to the "free exercise" clause. Yet both are necessary to preserve freedom of conscience, the broader intent of the First Amendment.

According to Eid's interpretation, the state may actively promote generic religious beliefs, so long as the state does not favor "any particular sect or set of religious beliefs," and so long as the state does not establish an official religion. Yet, aside from the fact that every possible state-sanction of religion would involve a "particular sect or set of religious beliefs," Eid entirely neglects our right to remain free from religion. Forcing someone to fund via taxation some religious program or ideology, against the funder's will, is a violation of the person's rights.

Eid presents a slightly more sophisticated variant of Janet Rowland's comment about the separation of church and state: "It's not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion." Rowland, the running mate of Bob Beauprez for the governor's race of 2006, got trounced in that election. Consistent with her pronouncement, Rowland promoted the spending of tax dollars for religious welfare and education.

Regardless of the weakness of Eid's case, he illustrates one point with perfect clarity: America's religious right has been enormously successful in advancing its agenda of faith-based politics.

'We Made Bold Moves'

On Wednesday night, my wife and I watched In the Shadow of the Moon, a documentary about the Apollo missions. The film consists mostly of interviews taken recently with several of the astronauts and video and photos that the astronauts shot on their voyages. I spent the film alternately gasping, cheering, chuckling, and blinking back tears. (Make sure to watch the extra interviews, too.)

Paraphrasing, one of the astronauts says, "It was a time when we made bold moves."

Watching the videos while listening to the men explain what was going on is riveting: I got some sense of how exciting, how fantastic, and how scary these trips were. These men were basically strapping themselves to a missile inside a glorified tin can.

We enjoyed many of the comments by the astronauts, but our favorite interviews were those of Alan Bean. To take just one humorous example, he says something like, "Some of the tabloids claimed that we staged the whole thing in a hanger in Arizona. Maybe that would have been a good idea." His joyful spirit is fun to watch. Bean has devoted his later years to painting moonscapes. I rather like many of these paintings; "Hello Universe" says it all. Viewers can flip through all of the paintings.

Elsewhere I might discuss the politics of space travel, but for this blog I'll look for the religious themes. In my view, the only error of the documentarians was to include near the end gratuitous material about religion and environmentalism. That one of the men found Jesus after his Apollo mission hardly seemed relevant. Yet, obviously these trips were profoundly moving for the astronauts, and I got the sense that they sometimes had a hard time expressing the spiritual dimensions of traveling beyond the earth.

One of the astronauts talked about how, prior to the moon landing, those orbiting the moon on Christmas Eve read passages from Genesis for transmission to earth. One woman sued them for it, which struck me as taking things a bit far.

By coincidence, on Thursday I was reading Joseph Campbell's Though Art That. He had the following to say about the reading (page 4):

The incongruity was that they were several thousand miles beyond the highest heaven conceived of at the time when the Book of Genesis was written, when such science as there was held the concept of a flat earth. There they were, in one moment remarking on how dry the moon was, and in the next, reading of how the waters above and the waters beneath had been walled off.

One of the most marvelous moments of that contemporary experience was described in stately imagery that just did not fit. The moment deserved a more appropriate religious text.

Though Ayn Rand would have had little patience with Campbell's Kantian presumptions regarding "the ineffable nature of the divine" (page 17), Rand did write an essay about Apollo 11 that appropriately celebrates the achievement:

The meaning of the sight lay in the fact that when those dark red wings of fire flared open, one knew that one was not looking at a normal occurrence, but at a cataclysm which, if unleashed by nature, would have wiped man out of existence -- and one knew also that this cataclysm was planned, unleashed, and controlled by man, that this unimaginable power was ruled by his power and, obediently serving his purpose, was making way for a slender, rising craft. One knew that this spectacle was not the product of inanimate nature, like some aurora borealis, or of chance, or of luck, that it was unmistakably human -- with "human," for once, meaning grandeur -- that a purpose and a long, sustained, disciplined effort had gone to achieve this series of moments, and that man was succeeding, succeeding, succeeding! For once, if only for seven minutes, the worst among those who saw it had to feel -- not "How small is man by the side of the Grand Canyon!" -- but "How great is man and how safe is nature when he conquers it!"

That we had seen a demonstration of man at his best, no one could doubt -- this was the cause of the event's attraction and of the stunned numbed state in which it left us. And no one could doubt that we had seen an achievement of man in his capacity as a rational being -- an achievement of reason, of logic, of mathematics, of total dedication to the absolutism of reality.

Amen.

God Wins in Iowa

From The Colorado Freedom Report:

The big winner in the Iowan caucuses is Jesus Christ. Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are the two most religious -- politically religious -- candidates of their parties. I'm surprised that those candidates came in first. However, I don't believe that they'll win the nominations (though I think it likely that Obama joins somebody else's ticket). Indeed, I would be stunned if either candidate made it to the general election. If both make it, that will demonstrate that this country is in worse shape than I thought, and that we are likely headed toward more expansive religious-based politics.

Here's why I don't think Huckabee or Obama will last. In late 2006, Time published a map titled, "Denomination Nation." If you select for "Mainline Protestants," you will find that Iowa is among the states most heavily populated by such Christians. West of Nebraska, the numbers drop off dramatically.

Huckabee's motto is "Faith. Family. Freedom." -- in that order. Huckabee leaves no doubt that he will interpret "freedom" through the lens of faith, which means that he will sacrifice genuine freedom to faith.

Under his "Issues" page "Faith and Politics," Huckabee writes, "My faith is my life -- it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth."

On the issue of abortion, Huckabee writes,

I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. ... I have no desire to throw women in jail, I just want us to stop throwing babies in the garbage. ... With respect to stem cells, I am opposed to research on embryonic stem cells.

However, if Huckabee passes an amendment outlawing abortion, this will necessarily impose criminal penalties on women and/or their doctors. (I do not imagine that the amendment will read, "Pretty please don't have abortions; Congress shall pass no law enforcing this amendment.") Then real police with real guns will arrest real people and throw them into real jails, Huckabee's disingenuous "desires" notwithstanding.

It is unclear to me what exceptions Huckabee might allow. Would he outlaw all abortions from the moment the sperm enters the egg? What about cases of rape, incest, or dangers to the life of the mother? And who gets to make such calls? How many doctors will be called before the Inquisition to prove that an abortion was necessary to protect the woman's life? And how many women will be called to prove that their miscarriages were accidental?

However, even an abortion ban with numerous exceptions and light enforcement would severely violate the rights of pregnant women who do not wish to have a child. (The fact that many abortions result from irresponsible sex does not change this fact.) The sort of abortion ban that many Christians favor would outlaw abortions of fertilized eggs. Thus, the "morning after" pill would be outlawed, and, presumably, manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of such a pill would bring criminal penalties. Yet the position that a fertilized egg or a cluster of cells should be granted the same rights that you have is grounded on the Christian dogma that God infuses a fertilized egg with a soul. Such a policy imposes religion by political force.

Huckabee also wishes to outlaw certain types of medical research based on his religious beliefs. I don't know where Huckabee stands on issues of censorship and "faith-based" tax subsidies. (For further discussion on religion in politics, see my blog post on Fred Thompson and then link back from there.)

Aside from his rejection of the separation of church and state, Huckabee is a typical "moderate" left-wing statist. He endorses environmentalism through political force and better health through federal controls, as examples. Mark Joseph's December 31 column about Huckabee is telling:

The stunning and rapid ascendence of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has shocked prominent old-guard Washington Republicans and conservatives, leaving them shaking their heads, wondering how a social conservative with a fairly liberal record on issues like immigration, education, taxes and spending can possibly be commanding the allegiance of so many Christian conservative voters. ...

For Huckabee is an unreconstructed and unapologetic pre-1980 Republican who has more in common with William Jennings Bryan than Ronald Reagan and whose views expose the deep rift that has always existed between social and economic conservatives. ...

[T]he emergence of Huckabee and his hybrid conservative/liberal style may finally produce the much ballyhooed conservative crackup that so many commentators have been predicting.

Obama would expand national controls over virtually every aspect of our lives. Yet at least he talks about the separation of church and state. Yet he clearly believes that God has called him to use the power of the national government to carry out religious goals. The document, "Barack Obama on Faith," states that "God is constantly present in our lives..." And Obama wants to make sure of it. "Faith is a source of action for justice." In this context, "justice" is a euphemism for political controls to force people to obey Obama's version of Christian "charity." For some examples, see Obama's proposals on poverty. He wants to expand "career" subsidies, "create a green jobs corps," expand subsidies for "urban planning initiatives," increase the forced wage rate, etc. Obama also wants to impose "a new national health plan."

Obama is thus in tune with the socialist tradition. The difference is that he justifies his socialism by faith.

The election of Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama as President of the United States would constitute a national disaster. Fortunately, that's not likely to happen.

Fred Thompson on Religion

Even though Mitt Romney has lost his momentum and Mike Huckabee seems to have improved his position, I would still be surprised if Huckabee came away with the Republican nomination. It's obvious, though, that Romney's Mormonism is hurting him with some of the Protestants of the right. (His statism, the issue that matters, is hurting him with some.) However, I don't think that Huckabee will find much success in the relatively secular Interior West or on the coasts.

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson's campaign has sputtered out. Nevertheless, his campaign did send me a letter that mentions church and state. (I last recorded Mitt Romney's positions on church and state; link back from there to find additional commentary.) Thompson's letter, dated November 24, offered no details: "I know one challenge that concerns you is about church and state issues. [Or, fill in the blank.] For more information on my policy views, please visit my website at www.Fred08.com." So I did.

Thompson believes (see "Principles"), "A healthy society is predicated on belief in God..." Unsurprisingly, then, Thompson wishes to impose Christian doctrine through politics. Even though he claims (see "On the Issues: Building Strong Families") that he wishes to "advance freedom of religion," elsewhere he makes it clear that what he really wants to advance is religion itself, via political force.

The web page states:

Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act... While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.

So Thompson wants to outlaw at least most abortions. I don't know whether Thompson would make exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother, but his commitment to "every life" seems to include every fertilized egg, regardless of circumstances. Thompson would also forcibly ban some medical research, according to his religious dogma.

Under "Protecting our Kids," Thompson writes, "While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced." Unfortunately, nobody has ever offered an objective definition of "obscenity," because there is none. Does anyone wonder where religious conservatives would draw the line, if they controlled prosecutors and the courts? Thompson also writes, "Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer." But parents are already so "empowered," simply by virtue of being parents. What more does Thompson have in mind? I'm not sure, but it seems to involve more federal controls.

I could not find whether Thompson supports the spending of tax dollars for religiously-affiliated groups. He does express support for vouchers, which presumably would direct some tax dollars to religious schools.

Obviously, Fred Thompson holds no serious commitment to the separation of church and state -- he instead seeks to forcibly impose religious doctrine. Therefore, I will not vote for Fred Thompson for any office, under any circumstances.

Romney's Religion

Recently Mark Udall, candidate for U.S. Senate, sent me a letter in which he endorsed the separation of church and state. Now Mitt Romney has given a speech on the subject of faith. At a superficial level, Romney also endorses the separation of church and state:

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion."

However, generic endorsements of the separation of church and state are inadequate. Just as anyone can proclaim support for a contentless version of "freedom," so can everyone but an out-and-out theocrat generically proclaim support for the separation of church and state. That is why, in my letter to candidates, I asked for replies to specific questions regarding abortion, stem cell research, and tax funding of religious groups and doctrine.

In his speech, Romney explicitly calls for tax funding of religious teaching:

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders -- in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty" (emphasis added).

In other words, Romney does not wish to spend tax funds to promote the particular doctrines of, say, Mormonism or Catholicism; he merely wishes to spend tax funds to teach children in "the public square" about the God common to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition.

This reminds me of the speech delivered by Leonard Peikoff in 1986 (and published as "Religion Versus America" in Ayn Rand's The Voice of Reason.) Peikoff said:

"If prayer is said aloud [in tax-funded schools]," [Jack Kemp] explains, "it need be no more than a general acknowledgment of the existence, power, authority, and love of God, the Creator." That's all -- nothing controversial or indoctrinating about that! (page 78)

Romney said, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." For a refutation of Romney's claim, see Peikoff's article.

Romney's comment reminded me of something that Laura Ingraham said at a recent banquet. She said that without a particularly religious virtue, "you can kiss the free market goodbye." It is obvious that Romney and Ingraham think that religion must come before freedom. Will it then surprise anyone when they and their fellow travelers decide it's okay to sacrifice "just a little" freedom for the cause of religion?

Elsewhere Romney states that he wishes to outlaw nearly all abortions, restrict medical research, expand censorship of (ambiguously defined) "obscenity," and spend tax dollars on "faithbased groups." Various religious leaders in this country have advocated the complete ban of all abortions, more spending of tax dollars on religious groups and instruction, censorship of "pornography," and so forth.

Romney's claim that "religion requires freedom" is obviously false; for example, religion thrived for century after century in the brutally oppressive Egyptian empires and Middle Ages. Freedom does not require religion, though it defends freedom of religion -- and freedom from religion. What freedom requires is that religious leaders abstain from forcing their theology onto others. Despite his generic statement to the contrary, Romney has demonstrated that he wishes to sacrifice freedom to religion. And that is why I will never cast a vote for Mitt Romney for any office, under any circumstances.

Mark Udall Replies Regarding Church and State

Last month, I mailed a letter to candidates regarding the separation of church and state. The letter stated:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

To date, Mark Udall is the only candidate to reply. (Mitt Romney's campaign sent me a letter, but it was entirely nonresponsive to my letter.) Udall, currently in the U.S. House, is running for U.S. Senate next year. His letter, dated November 21, is "paid and authorized by Udall for Colorado, Inc." The letter lists http://markudall.org/ as the associated web page. Here's what Udall has to say:

First, I fully support the continued separation of church and state in this country. As our founding fathers recognized when they made religious freedom a fundamental principle of our Constitution, our nation is home to people of a large variety of religious backgrounds and beliefs. Our government has no role to play in selecting those beliefs, in advocating for one religion over another religion, or in supporting the presence of religion in favor of no religion. I will continue to vote against legislation that compromises our country's ability to keep religion and government separate. That includes programs that discriminate against people based on their religious belief or that use government funds to support one religion over another.

Second, I am a firm believer in protecting an individual's right to make her own choices with regard to her reproductive health. Such decisions are deeply personal and involve the consideration of many factors within the realm of those held sacred under our constitutional right to privacy. In addition, as we saw when abortion was illegal, denying women their right to choose an option does not eliminate the need for it. That said, we must provide access to reproductive health education, adoption, and contraception to limit, as much as possible, the number of women forced to make the difficult choice of whether or not to have an abortion.

Third, I strongly oppose government bans on embryonic stem-cell research. My father suffered from Parkinson's disease and I have always wondered whether [his] life could have been saved if the incredible medical advancements now possible through stem-cell research had occurred just a few years earlier. I believe that it is our obligation to prevent future deaths from terminal diseases, like Parkinson's, if it is possible, and will continue to support stem-cell research.

While I could criticize several details of Udall's reply, I could hardly ask for a stronger endorsement of the separation of church and state. So far, I have seen no such statement from Udall's likely opponent, Bob Schaffer. Unless that changes, my vote will go to Udall. If Schaffer offers a similarly strong endorsement of the separation of church and state, then I will vote on other considerations. If I vote for Udall, my vote should not be taken as an endorsement of all of Udall's policies; I strongly disagree with his environmentalism and welfare statism.

I am impressed by Udall's answer for another reason: candidates and politicians rarely offer so detailed a reply to letters unaccompanied by checks with large figures. Merely the fact that Udall's letter responds to my letter in a detailed a thoughtful manner says something good about Udall.

Religious Motivation: Reply to Jamelle Bouie

In reply to my post, "Religious Right, Meet Religious Left," Jamelle Bouie writes:

I'm not sure if you can equate religiously motivated politics with trying to "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas."

Having a theologically based political belief is no different then having a philosophically based one. So for example, there are Christians who believe that Jesus' admonitions about caring for the poor compel them to advocate -- politically -- on behalf of the poor.

They aren't necessarily trying to impose a religious belief, but their actions are motivated by said belief.

Bouie distinguishes between advocating a policy from religious motives and advocating a policy that advances religious doctrine. This can indeed be a useful distinction.

Here are some examples of advocating a policy from religious motives, when the policy itself does not explicitly promote a religious doctrine. Various Christians want to outlaw abortion, because they believe that abortion is forbidden by God's will, yet a law outlawing abortion need not explicitly mention any religious belief. Other Christians want to politically restrict the human emission of carbon dioxide, because they believe they have a religious duty to "save the earth" from such emissions, but those restrictions themselves do not necessarily promote Christian beliefs. Notably, many people who aren't Christians also want to politically restrict such emissions. Many theists want to forcibly redistribute wealth to the poor, because they believe such redistribution is demanded by their religious precepts, yet statutes enforcing such redistribution need not mention religion. Many atheists also advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor.

Here are some examples of "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense of using politics to advance a religious doctrine. Many "conservatives" (as noted) want to divert tax funds to schools that teach particular religious doctrines. Many conservatives also want government-run schools to teach creationism as science. In times past, various countries have passed statutes requiring people to attend some particular church. In the Middle Ages, the Inquisition murdered people for expressing beliefs heretical to Christianity.

However, as useful as this distinction is, it does not accomplish what Bouie thinks it does. I am not concerned merely with criticizing instances of political force that advance particular religious doctrines. I am also concerned with criticizing those who would "use the force of government to advance their religious agendas" in the broader sense. For example, I oppose the outlawing of abortion because it involves the illegitimate use of governmental force. In other words, I oppose the (initiatory) use of governmental force across the board, not merely when that use of force advances some particular religious doctrine.

Those who wish to outlaw abortion are indeed "trying to impose a religious belief" in the sense that matters. No, those who want to outlaw abortion are not trying to force me to say, "I accept that God forbids abortion," but they are trying to interfere with the liberty of my wife and me to control our own lives. (As a side note, it turns out that my wife and I have discovered this wonderful invention called "birth control," but we would not rule out an abortion if, for example, a pregnancy threatened the life of my wife. Of course, some Christians also want to outlaw birth control.)

In other cases, bad policies can be motivated by religious or secular ideologies. In such cases, does it really matter what the motivation is? Yes, it does, for two reasons. First, a full refutation of the case behind the policy is impossible without an understanding of what's motivating the policy. A Christian and a Marxist might both advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor, but they'll have different reasons for doing so (even though I agree with Leonard Peikoff that leftist collectivism is basically derived or borrowed from religious collectivism). Second, one cannot assess the potential cultural power of a particular policy proposal without knowing what's motivating it. For example, in his June 12 post, Peikoff argues that the "anti-industrial Greens" will have "short-lived" success, but that religion is capable of much stronger and longer-lasting cultural influence.

As a side note, I strongly discourage writers from using the construction "advocate on" or "advocate for." What does it mean to "advocate on behalf of the poor?" Advocate what? It is possible to advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth to the poor. It is possible to advocate Policy X. Let us stop this empty "advocating for" positions that are never specified. I oppose this egalitarianism of advocacy, this presumption that all forms of advocacy are created equal, regardless of what is being advocated. If you have the guts to advocate a particular policy or idea, then have the guts to name that policy or idea.

Religious Right, Meet Religious Left

A few days ago, I wrote "that one eventual possibility is for the... religious right and religious left [to] grow closer together."

The future is now.

In his October 14 blog for the Rocky Mountain News, "Faith in the planet," M.E. Sprengelmeyer writes:

In American politics, we're used to hearing Republicans use the language of faith. And we're used to hearing Democrats talk tough on protecting the environment.

But this year, we're starting to notice candidates from both sides mixing the two, perhaps hoping that breaking that language barrier can win them cross-over support.

Sprengelmeyer offers quotes from two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.

Obama:

The Bible tells us that when God created the Earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that Earth -- to exercise stewardship over His creation. ... I don't believe that this separation [of church and state] means that we should leave our religion at the door before entering the public square.

Huckabee:

My faith is my life - it defines me. My faith doesn't influence my decisions, it drives them. For example, when it comes to the environment, I believe in being a good steward of the earth. I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives.

The difference between the candidates is that Obama is losing out to a secularist, Hillary Clinton, who uses the language of religion strategically, while Huckabee is losing out to a dedicated religionist, Mitt Romney, who believes "we are a religious people." The left will rally behind Clinton, while the religious right is threatening to leave Giuliani at the altar should he manage to take the lead.

It is indeed interesting that, substantively, the quoted comments of Obama and Huckabee are identical. It is true that the religious left is more interested in expanding the welfare and environmentalist state, while the religious right is more interested in outlawing abortion and promoting religion through government. However, both sides care a lot more about attaining their pet goals than they do about stopping the religionists on the other side of the aisle. The tendency will be for both sides of the religious divide to "compromise" by tolerating the goals of the other side in order to promote their own agendas. Thus, it is not much of a surprise to see the religious right warming up to environmentalism or the religious left downplaying the separation of church and state. The religious right and the religious left are already united in their desire to use the force of government to advance their religious agendas.

"He Went to Live with Two Homosexuals"

When criticizing James Dobson, I wrote, "I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life." But I don't want to leave the wrong impression. Many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani are positives in my book. And some of Dobson's criticisms are ridiculous:

Here's why I cannot vote for Rudy Giuliani. He’s pro-abortion. He's never repudiated gay marriage in New York City or at least the civil unions in New York City. He's called a champion of gay rights. Rudy is opposed to school choice. He's in favor of open borders. He lived with a mistress in the mansion in New York while he was married to his wife -- and she was in the same house. He's been married three times. When his second wife got sick of it she threw him out and he went to live with two homosexuals.

I don't want abortion outlawed, I support domestic partnerships for homosexuals, I oppose school vouchers (because I support real free markets in education), and I favor open immigration (except for criminals and those with contagious diseases). I agree that Giuliani ought not have had a mistress (assuming that Dobson's claims are correct); that was wrong of him.

But what is that last bit? "[H]e went to live with two homosexuals." That's the sort of line that gives me the surreal sense that somebody must be playing an elaborate practical joke. Why would it even occur to anyone to check to see whether Giuliani ever lived with two homosexuals? I mean, huh? When Dobson comes up with lines like that, parody is beside the point.

I keep having to remind myself that there are people in this country who take this guy seriously.

Candidates' Mailing Addresses

So I'm sending a copy of the letter, "Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters," to candidates at the national and state level. Since I'm looking up the addresses, I'd thought I'd pass them along (even though only some of them will be relevant to most voters).

Of course, the 2008 elections are still more than a year away. But I wanted to introduce the letter early in the political season. There's not much activity in the state legislative races at this point, but next year I'll mail a copy of the letter to those candidates, too.

President

It turns out that there are a ridiculous number of people who think they're running for president. The number just for Republicans approaches 100. So I'm going to send the letter only to candidates who are leading. I'm working from Vote Smart.

Rudolph W. Giuliani
1585 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

Mike Huckabee
Carter Wamp
Policy
Post Office Box 2008
Little Rock, AR 72203

John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Mitt Romney
585 Commercial Street
Boston, MA 02109

Fred Thompson
Friends of Fred Thompson
Incorporated Post Office Box 128349
Nashville, TN 37212-8349

Joe Biden
201 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Hillary Clinton
476 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

John Edwards
1201 Old Greensboro Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27516

Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Bill Richardson
490 Old Santa Fe Trail Room 400
Santa Fe, NM 87501

U.S. Senate for Colorado

Bob Schaffer (I couldn't easily find a mailing address.)
team@BobSchaffer.org

Mark Udall
8690 Wolff Court, #200
Westminster, CO 80031

U.S. Congress for Colorado's Second District

(The following two candidates are Democrats, as Democrats always win this Boulder-centered race.)

Joan Fitz-Gerald
9975 Wadsworth Parkway - Unit K2 #401
Westminster, CO 80021-6814

Jared Polis
PO Box 4572
Boulder, CO 80306

Colorado Republicans and Democrats

Republican Party of Colorado
5950 S. Willow Drive, Suite 220
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Democratic Party of Colorado
777 Santa Fe Drive
Denver, CO 80204

The Dobson Divide

Two days ago I signed a letter stating: "In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state." The letter asks candidates to respond to five questions, one of which is about abortion.

Today I read an interview with James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family. Here's what he has to say:

[T]here was an informal meeting of about 50 pro-family and pro-life leaders that had come together [in Salt Lake City]. The purpose of it was to talk about what we would do if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate...

There were about 50 people there and, to my count, 44 of them stood saying we will not vote for Rudy Giuliani or whoever it is we're talking about that's pro-abortion. And that got covered all over the nation and, as you can imagine, I was inundated.

So I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times saying why we would not do that -- because you start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who's going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics -- not on the basis of who can win or who's ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who's the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise.

At least Dobson doesn't dodge the issue: he explicitly says he wants to base American politics on Christian doctrine.

Dobson wants to outlaw abortion and prevent marriage or domestic partnerships for homosexuals because that's what he believes is the will of God. If Dobson has his way, what other policies might Christians try to impose? I have not researched Dobson's particular views, but here are some policies that various Christians have proposed: censorship, criminal sanctions against homosexual acts among consenting adults, a ramped-up drug war including renewed alcohol prohibition, tax-funded religious education, tax-funded welfare, and bans on all sorts of medical research from cloning to stem cells. Certainly these policies, and many others involving a heavy hand of government, have found support in "biblical values."

Dobson poses the typical false choice between pragmatism and religion. For what it's worth, I agree with many of Dobson's criticisms of Giuliani's personal life. But Dobson's "principles" are not grounded on any objective morality; they are merely arbitrary constructs, ultimately as subjectivist as what he claims to criticize. Dobson wants to govern America by his reading of an inherently ambiguous book of popular mythology. Giuliani has his personal faults, but at least he seems to be somewhat oriented toward reality.

I think that the Republican Party remains in deep, deep trouble. On one side, the religious right threatens to work against any candidate who does not pledge to govern according to Christian doctrine (as interpreted by the religious right). On the other side, voters more concerned about economic liberty and limited government are increasingly alienated by the religious right. (This is essentially the issue that handed Colorado to the Democrats.) Various leaders within the GOP have called for a renewal of vows, but the wedding was always one born of a shotgun. I suppose that one eventual possibility is for the free marketeers to seek out the civil libertarians of the left, even as the religious right and religious left grow closer together.

But Dobson is right about one thing. Politics is not primary. Ethics is primary. That is the real cultural battle today.

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

Church/State Separation Endorsed by Colorado Voters

The signatories offer the following announcement as a non-exclusive letter to the editor.

As advocates of individual rights and free markets, we are deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, we also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, we will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state. We ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,
Ari Armstrong, Westminster
Tom Hall, Louisville
Diana Hsieh, Sedalia
Paul Hsieh, Sedalia
Mike Williams, Denver
Leonard Peikoff, Colorado Springs
Richard Watts, Hayden
Cara Thompson, Denver
Hannah Krening, Larkspur
Erika Hanson Brown, Denver
Bill Faulkner, Broomfield
Cameron Craig, Denver
Bryan Armentrout, Erie

Version for Individual Voters

Note: Voters have permission to reproduce and distribute the following declaration. The document may be signed by individual voters and sent to the candidates for whom they will have an opportunity to vote. The names and addresses of candidates generally can be found through regional newspapers and Secretaries of State.

Dear Candidate,

I hereby add my name to the following declaration:

As an advocate of individual rights and free markets, I am deeply concerned about attacks on economic liberty and property rights. However, I also believe that the greater modern threat to individual rights is the attempt by some religious groups to make politics conform to their faith.

In coming election cycles, I will vote against any candidate who does not explicitly and unambiguously endorse the separation of church and state, whether on his or her web page or in direct correspondence. I ask that candidates declare whether they:

1. Endorse the separation of church and state.

2. Oppose the spending of tax dollars on programs with religious affiliations, such as "faith-based" welfare.

3. Oppose the spending of tax dollars to teach creationism and/or intelligent design as science.

4. Oppose efforts to restrict the legal right of adult women to obtain an abortion.

5. Oppose bans on embryonic stem-cell research.

Signed,