Religion growing theme in politics

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 2283
Rockville MD 20847

310-910-9153

Religion growing theme in politics

Critics call move political ploy in election year

By Sadie Gurman, The Joplin Globe Capitol March 15, 2006

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - It's not the first time Annetta St. Clair has seen religion wriggle its way into Missouri politics, but now, she said, the voices are getting louder.

Last month, the Senate Education Committee heard a bill that would allow schools to teach the Bible for its historical or literary value. A few weeks later, Rep. David Sater, R-Cassville, filed a resolution that champions prayer in public venues and recognizes a "Christian God." And on the agenda of lawmakers this week is a resolution affirming a student's right to voluntarily pray in school.

St. Clair, a political science professor at Missouri Southern State University in Joplin, said religion has been a growing theme in Missouri politics for the better part of the past century, but the recent events have made the subject more noticeable.

"It's been there," St. Clair said, "but it hasn't been this vocal."

Supporters of the legislation say drawing attention to what they see as the country's Christian roots and religious past should help people better understand and appreciate the religious freedoms they have. Some Christian groups say such moves will help curb what they see as an assault on Christian values.

St. Clair and other critics say the move is a political ploy in an election year, intended to appeal to voters who often use faith as a litmus test for political values.

A push for faith
Proponents of the House resolutions say they're a push for faith, not a requirement.

Rep. Kevin Wilson, R-Neosho, said that for that reason, he signed onto Sater's resolution, which states that the majority of Missourians are Christians, and that elected officials should "protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object."

Wilson said the resolution's critics have misinterpreted its motive. It does not establish a state religion or place Christianity above other religions, he said.

"In my mind, it's not polarizing," Wilson said. "I believe all the resolution is doing is recognizing the right to celebrate without the state telling us we can't."

Nothing about the resolution binds anyone to any faith, Wilson said. A resolution is not a bill and therefore cannot become a law. It's a symbolic message, Wilson said.

Peter Buckland, a professor of Christian education and family ministry at Ozark Christian College in Joplin, said the resolution comes partly in response to fear on the part of many Christians that their values are being eroded or are under attack.

"We could put a case forward that, from a Christian standpoint, there is an erosion of values, and that creates a fear that we are going to lose even more," Buckland said. "That fear can generate these kind of resolutions."

Buckland said lawmakers don't want to mandate or discriminate, but they just want to get a discussion going about First Amendment rights for members of all religions.

Buckland said Sater's resolution makes a historical statement about the nation's past.

The resolution states, "Our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation."

But Paul Teverow, a member of United Hebrew Congregation in Joplin, said lawmakers who say the country's foundations were rooted in Christianity miss the point of what America is all about: religious freedom.

"If you look at the people who established this country, it's quite true that the overwhelming majority were Christian, and for many, faith was an important part of their lives," Teverow said. "But if you look at the documents in which they founded our government, they seem to have gone out of their way to leave faith out of it."

Teverow said that when he reads the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution, he sees no mention of Christianity. There may be a reference to God once or twice, Teverow said, but these documents are intentionally secular.

"As an American, our heritage of religious freedom is very important to me," Teverow said. "I am alarmed by the attempts of elected officials who should know better than to try to undermine it."

'Us vs. them'
Bill Fleischaker, a Joplin lawyer who handles free-speech cases, said that even if the resolution isn't binding, its language is divisive. He said the resolution's writers forget that the "Christian God" they recognize in their proposal is the same God of Judaism and Islam.

Fleischaker said leaving non-Christians out of the wording creates an "us vs. them" mentality that detracts attention from larger issues that lawmakers ought to deal with instead.

Buckland said members of other faiths are right to be concerned about such language. Historically, he said, groups have used political means to favor their own positions. But, he said, the resolution isn't meant to be antagonistic, and Christians should do a better job of showing other groups that their intentions aren't hostile.

St. Clair said that for many people who aren't government-minded, faith is often the only issue they look for when selecting a candidate or forming an opinion.

"If you can sell a person as a religious person, then a lot of people who only pay very rare attention to politics and people who are not well-versed in government but who are religious will latch on," St. Clair said. "If you phrase issues with a religious bent on them, then there are many people who will simply accept it."

School prayer
Fleischaker said a resolution by Rep. Carl Bearden, R-St. Charles, that reaffirms a student's right to engage in voluntary prayer in school is unnecessary because there is nothing that outlaws that type of prayer.

Bearden also has called for a constitutional amendment as a ballot issue in November that would allow Missouri voters to weigh in on protecting voluntary prayer in public venues.

"I think there are people who probably prey on people's lack of education as to exactly what the Constitution permits," Fleischaker said. "I mean, all you've got to do is read letters to the editor where people say God isn't permitted in school to realize that people don't understand that it is permitted."

Kerry Messer, a lobbyist for the Missouri Family Network and the Missouri Baptist Convention, said Bearden's resolution isn't about Christianity or religion - it's about protecting the First Amendment. He said he has heard of instances in which students and adults have been told that they couldn't publicly pray or that prayer was not allowed in certain venues.

Teverow said that although the text of the resolution does not mandate public prayer, it endorses a policy that would make it difficult for those who don't wish to pray in a particular setting to opt out of doing so.

Fred Vogel, a pastor at Grace Baptist Church in Joplin, said schools and officials sometimes need to be reminded of what constitutional rights exist regarding religion. A resolution as a statement reaffirming one's right to voluntary prayer isn't a bad thing, he said, as long as it doesn't mandate prayer.

"As a safeguard for people to understand what the true intent is, we may have to make statements," Vogel said.

Fleischaker said the resolution is another attempt to distract voters from the true issues that the state is facing.

"I'd love to hear some politician stand up and say, 'I don't care if there is prayer in school or not. That ain't gonna cure our problems,'" he said.

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.