The U.S. Senate should not go along with a House plan that provides $100 million in “faith-based” funding as part of the federal economic recovery package, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

HR 1, the measure approved by the House yesterday, includes a $100 million appropriation for the “Compassion Capital” Fund (CCF), a key component of former President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative.

Americans United officials say CCF money was allocated by the Bush White House without adequate oversight or civil rights and civil liberties safeguards. Administration officials also misused the fund to help political candidates and directed cash to their Religious Right allies. (TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing, for example, was given a grant.)Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “I am disappointed that the House included funding for the so-called ‘compassion capital’ program. I hope the Senate refuses to go along with this.”

Lynn noted, however, that he is pleased with other aspects of the House’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Americans United’s legislative team successfully worked with House members to ensure that problematic faith-based provisions did not apply to the overall economic recovery bill, Lynn said. That’s an important victory, he asserted, in preserving civil rights and civil liberties.

The House stimulus bill also provides broad funding for public school renovations, he continued, but specifically forbids the use of federal money at religious schools or houses of worship.

“I think House members were sensitive to the First Amendment’s church-state separation mandate when they restricted public funds to use at public schools,” Lynn said. “I just wish they had carried that constitutional commitment forward and dropped funding for the much-abused Bush ‘faith-based’ scheme.”

About the Author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is advising houses of worship nationwide to respect federal tax law and stay out of partisan politics.

Americans United announced today that 100,000 letters have been mailed to clergy and lay leaders reminding them that federal tax law prohibits tax-exempt entities, including houses of worship, from endorsing candidates.

“Houses of worship are supposed to tend to spiritual needs and do charitable work, not act as political action committees,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “Our letter reminds religious leaders about what the law requires, why it makes sense and how it could affect them.”
The AU letters were sent to a broad cross-section of Christian denominations, as well as a selection of synagogues and mosques.

“The vast majority of clergy of all faiths reject the idea that houses of worship should be politicized. But misguided religious and political forces persist in pressuring religious leaders to violate federal tax law. We urge clergy to just say no.” ~~ Rev. Barry W. Lynn

The mass mailing comes on the heels of a project by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group, which last month urged evangelical Christian pastors to violate the law by endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. Reportedly, 33 pastors took part in the ADF effort; Americans United has already filed complaints with the IRS about seven of them.

In addition to its mass mailing to houses of worship, Americans United is making various resources about church politicking available to religious leaders and laypeople through a Web site it created called projectfairplay.org.

Several recent polls, Lynn noted, have shown a majority of Americans opposing pulpit politicking. Americans of all political persuasions and faith backgrounds are increasingly saying they want their houses of worship to unite people, not divide them by introducing partisan politics.

“Church-based electioneering drives wedges into congregations, violates federal tax law and distracts from the true mission of the religious community,” Lynn said. “It’s a bad deal all around.”

About the Author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate an Arkansas church whose pastor endorsed John McCain from the pulpit Oct. 12.

According to a report in the Associated Press, Bishop Robert Smith of Word of Outreach Christian Center in Little Rock told congregants, “I will be voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Smith later admitted that he took this action fully aware that federal tax law prohibits houses of worship from opposing or endorsing candidates. He told the Associated Press, “It’s about principle. I wouldn’t care if it’s my mother. If she isn’t for life or for heterosexual relationships, I wouldn’t vote for my momma.”

Smith’s violation of the law was part of a larger effort coordinated by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group. The ADF sponsored a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28 during which pastors were urged to violate federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit. Smith had planned to take part in that event but was out of town at the time.The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, urged the IRS to act swiftly in this case.

“Bishop Smith knowingly and flagrantly violated the law and has even dared the IRS to investigate him for it,” Lynn said. “I hope the federal tax agency promptly takes him up on that.”

Lynn noted that recent public-opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to pulpit politicking. He criticized Religious Right groups for pushing this crusade.

“The ADF and groups like it are trying to divert America’s churches away from spiritual matters and turn them into faith-based political action committees,” Lynn said. “It’s a mistake, and the effort deserves to fail.”

About the Author: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today filed complaints with the Internal Revenue Service about six churches whose pastors endorsed candidates from the pulpit during a mass defiance of federal tax law last Sunday.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal group in Scottsdale, Ariz., urged pastors to defy federal tax law by endorsing or opposing candidates during a so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” Sept. 28. Under the IRS Code, churches and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt groups may not intervene in elections.

“These pastors flagrantly violated the law and now must deal with the consequences. This is one of the most appalling Religious Right gambits I’ve ever seen. Church leaders are supposed to tend to Americans’ spiritual needs, not behave like partisan political hacks. I urge the IRS to act swiftly in these cases.” ~~ Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

Lynn also scored the ministers who took part in the ADF gambit.

“A pastor who knowingly violates federal tax law is setting a poor example for his or her congregation,” Lynn said. “Every pastor who took part in this stunt ought to be ashamed.”

The ADF overture has been roundly criticized. Many pastors refused to take part, arguing that America’s pulpits should not be politicized. In addition, three former IRS officials have filed a complaint asserting that the ADF has violated ethics standards governing tax attorneys by urging clients to violate the law.

The six churches reported to the IRS by Americans United today are:

• Bethlehem Baptist Church, Bethlehem, Ga.: According to press accounts, Pastor Jody Hice “urged his congregation to vote for Sen. John McCain and to not vote for Sen. Barack Obama.”
• Fairview Baptist Church, Fairview, Okla.: The Associated Press reported that Pastor Paul Blair “says he told his congregation that as a Christian and as an American citizen, he would be voting for John McCain.”
• Warroad Community Church, Warroad, Minn.: Pastor Gus Booth told his congregation, “We need to vote for the most righteous of candidates. And it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure that out. The most righteous is John McCain.”
• Calvary Chapel, Philadelphia, Pa.: The Rev. Francis Pultro told the congregation, “As Christians it’s clear we should vote for John McCain. He is the only candidate I believe a Christian can vote for.”
• First Southern Baptist Church, Buena Park, Calif.: The Rev. Wiley Drake said, “I am angry because the government and the IRS and some Christians have taken away the rights of pastors. I have a right to endorse anybody I doggone well please. And if they don’t like that, too bad….According to my Bible and in my opinion, there is no way in the world a Christian can vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Mr. Obama is not standing up for anything that is tradition in America.”
• New Life Church, West Bend, Wisc.: Speaking from the pulpit, Pastor Luke Emrich said, “I’m telling you straight up I would choose life. I would cast a vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.”

Said AU’s Lynn, “When five of the six pastors choose to endorse John McCain, it’s hard not to see the ADF scheme as partisan in character.”

In complaint letters filed with the IRS, Americans United urged swift investigations of the churches and appropriate penalties.

About AU: Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Periodically we need to investigate how our taxes are being spent and the organizations that are being supported by our taxes. It is our duty and responsibility to pay our taxes but also our obligation to not just request but demand and expect accountability. It is our duty to demand publication of who receives our taxes, and those religious organizations receiving tax dollars for their ministries must be expected to keep within the laws that guide how tax dollars are expended.

The “Faith-based” initiative promoted by the Bush administration has the mission of channeling funding into religious organizations. Taxes paid by Methodists, Unitarians, Mormons, Baptists, American Muslims, members of the Jewish faith are all supporting ministries selected by the federal government.

One problem with faith-based approach is that someone has to decide which faith gets the “initiative.” Thus religious ministries receiving tax dollars agree with the administration’s conservative theological view. They are receiving the bulk of tax funding.

The watchdog organization Americans United, through their newsletter Church and State, is daily working to educate and alert us to abuse of such funding for ministries. AU announced two cases of this misappropriation of our tax dollars as reported by the Rev. Barry Lynn.

AU, in a suit against a marriage counseling program in Washington State, the Justice Department:

…”saw no problem funding a program that counseled women that Christ was the head of the church, so the husband was the head of the family.

“However, another faith-based counseling group failed to get a grant because during its counseling sessions it stated the objectively true fact that some women do not find it easy to leave abusive relationships precisely because they believe they adhere to a ‘ husband-rules-the-roost’ philosophy based on their own earlier biblical instruction.”

AU noted that is was not surprising but sad to see foreign assistance is also being directed to groups with particular religious philosophies., even those that promote discrimination and whose policies end up harming the very people they were intended to serve.

According to AU, Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse received millions in government aid including a grant to build a new hospital in warring Angola, though the Boston Globe has reported that Graham’s hospital is hardly neutral territory. It will not allow Catholic Chaplains to visit the sick, and refuses to hire nurses who are not evangelical Christians.

Since there are many public health institutions that could benefit from US assistance, it must be questioned why a group with such noxious policies was moved to the top of the list. Imagine if some American hospital hired only fundamentalist Christian and the staff preached conservative theology to every patient?

AU lifts a prophetic voice so we can be better informed and have a more developed viewpoint on how our tax dollars are spent by religious ministries. I believe in the multitude of faith ministries; they do good work. However, let each of them support themselves whether in America or overseas. These ministries are obligated to follow federal regulations.

All illustrated here become examples for the conscience of America. The erosion of the Constitution in recent years is disturbing, and the laxness in enforcement and the granting of exceptions to government regulations is deplorable, even and perhaps for faith groups.

Let’s express our opinions when we object to such abuses in the use of our tax dollars.

Today’s thoughts on prayer concentrates on the issue of prayer in public schools, specifically in Florida, and how one organization is moving to remind school officials of how the United States Constitution applies to Florida — and to every state in the Union.

AU challenges school-sponsored prayer in Florida

Attorneys with Americans United have advised a Florida Public School to stop allowing a principal and other staffers to pray with students.

AU, after receiving complaints from community residents, asserts that Principal Mike Rio and several teachers were filmed on videotape praying with students on May 3, 2007, during a National Day of Prayer observance at Virgil Mills Elementary School in Bradenton. AU sent its letter on April 29 so there would be no recurrence of teacher-led prayer during this year’s National Day of Prayer, which was May 1.

“Government neutrality in matters of religion is particularly important in the context of public schools because students are legally required to attend – and are thus a captive audience – and because schoolchildren are considerably more impressionable than adults. ” AU’s letter asserts. “In accordance with these principles, the courts have held that school officials, teachers, and employees are not permitted to lead, participate in, or promote prayer with students.”

John Bowen, attorney for the school board , insisted nothing illegal is going on.

“I’ve talked to the principal, the assistant principal, and the school secretary, and a lot of information is erroneous,” Bowen told the Bradenton Herald. “To say the prayer meetings occur periodically throughout the school year is not true.”

AU asserts the tape clearly shows Rio participating in prayer and also pointed out that the prayer event was announced over the school’s public address system. (Reprinted with permission from AU)

This true story illustrates points that merit our thoughtfulness.

1. AU is in favor of prayer under the right circumstances. Their objection to mandatory time is in keeping with the teachings of Jesus.
2. Prayer over the PA system likely will violate other students concept of God. Even among protestant churches there are theological differences. Is a prayer in public assembly or a set time over a PA system Baptist, Methodist, or Mormon (or other) in content?
3. No matter how religiously dedicated the teachers or administration are, school isn’t the place for evangelizing.
4. The courts are always available to resolve such conflicts.
5. It is appropriate to speak out when our public schools violate neutrality on religious matters. It takes boldness to do so.

Last year I received word that a Christian drama group was to perform at one of our public high schools. This would be a violation of school policy and common sense if such an assembly was made mandatory or conducted during regular school hours. As to the content, such performances are acceptable if only values but not religious doctrine are presented.

Our educational leaders need our support and sometimes our guidance on meeting the needs of our students.

Yes we can “pray without ceasing.” In high school, I prayed often. I reserved Friday noon as the time for prayer and fasting in the privacy of the school stairwell. Private prayer in public schools isn’t prohibited, but it is to be done respectfully without infringing on the rights of other students.

I was recently shocked by a headline that read Federal Funding Changes Hit DCS. As I read each paragraph of this story, I got more and upset that our needy children will be tortured emotionally by budget cuts that precipitate the loss of 160 employees of the Department of Children and Youth Services. A budget cut by the federal government, namely the Bush administration, of $73 million dollars in unconscionable.

Governor Bredesen described this financial tragedy as “visible and painful kinds of cuts” and said budget cuts will have to be made in other areas “to keep the case management system intact.”

Our values are distorted: the pressing needs of our children must be given priority.

Where can the Bush administration find the dollars for the work of caring for our children and the workers of DCS. I suggest that some money, tax dollars, are better spent for the benefit of DCS staffs across the nation.

Presently the Bush administration is channeling huge sums of taxpayer dollars “earmarked” grants of public dollars intended for religious organizations whose tenet is pro-child. Such programs are:

• A $47,000 Justice department grant intended to “bring a life-changing message of adoration of Jesus Christ to city streets” While this message is legitimate and seen compulsory by its adherents, it does not need to be funded with tax dollars.
• A $202,000 grant to a St. Louis program called World Impact, again one of its objectives is promoting religion. While this is admirable, do so with taxpayer dollars is unfair, especially when funding is needed for the nation’s children in DCS care.
• A $500,000 HUD grant to World Impact Youth program called Christian leadership, which includes “Bible studies, devotion and evangelism” in fulfilling their mission.

The list of such mismanagement in programs promoting sectarian religious beliefs on the nickle of taxpayers is an abuse of government and a misuse of faith. Currently, our society is in need of such sums to maintain our DCS programs. I pray the faithful will stand up for one of the greatest values: self-sufficiency and God’s grace, and not the government handouts of our hard-earned tax-payer dollars.

The Iraq War, the environment, education, and taxes. It is also appropriate to look at their views on religion, especially at how it will affect their decisions is elected because religious views do influence political decisions. I still believe that a religious viewpoint is one reason behind America’s invasion of Iraq. A personal understanding of eschotology contributed to the quagmire and the deaths of thousands of our soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

Religion is an item discussed by the current crop of candidates on television, radio and in their speeches. We know where they go to church, how they interpret the Bible, what they pray for and other spiritual matters. It’s a major item to manipulate a portion of our religious society called the evangelicals (whom I think should be identified as fundamentalists).

Dr. Karen Armstrong in her scholarly writings differentiates between these two categories in her books, which are available at the library and at local bookstores.

To clearly understand our candidates’ religious posture, The First Freedom First Campaign (FFF) is building a formula for obtaining such information and understanding. This television ad program will feature legendary actors Jack Klugman and James Whitmore, two popular stars well over 50 years years of age.

It is our right and responsibility to be informed about such critical issues as religious liberty as enshrined in the First Amendment. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, concisely reinforces this pursuit. He states:

“All Americans whether religious or not have a right to know where a candidate stands on issues that have a real, direct impact on their lives, such as science, academic integrity and protection against religious discrimination.”

The following questions should asked as we analyze the faith views of our politicians and determine through reading and research the following:

• Candidate comments that “America is a Christian Nation.”
• Comments on the endorsement of candidates by churches
• Comments on the position on prayer in public schools
• Comments on whether creationism should be taught in public schools
• Comments on “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and an “immoral” war
• Comments on an organization that receives tax dollars to discriminate in hiring and firing based on religious beliefs
• Comments on one’s “right to disbelieve in God is protected by the same laws that protect someone else’s right to believe.”
• Comments on the torture of civilians and soldiers

Relies on these issues will illuminate, educate and enlighten us as voters and enable us to make our own decisions in the voting booth. Remember: political views of candidates does influence political policy.

Did Pastor Robert Byrd of the Jonesville Church of God step over the line in Jonesville, South Carolina, when he posted the following words outdoors on a church sign for all to see: “Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?” Pastor Byrd maintained it was not intended to be racial or political and claims it was meant to foster thought about having a non-Christian, non-Christ follower, leading the country. Byrd says he doesn’t know if Obama is Muslim or not but wanted to pose the question. Quite frankly, I don’t see what spiritual direction or choice has to do with one’s ability to run the business that is the United States of America. I wasn’t a Romney fan for many reasons, but his Mormon faith was a non-issue. Funny how no one questions religious affiliation to Christian candidates such Mike Huckabee, who is now out of the race too.

Give me a break. It was a cheap shot based on dis-information and a desire to push a congregation of the opinionated and the blind-faith followers to back candidates like Mike Huckabee and others who would push an obvious Christian agenda all the way the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court. Their way or no way.

Now, I don’t care which way Byrd and his congregation vote; it’s their vote and their choices. I don’t care how many people they talk to or what they talk about with each other. I don’t care how a candidates prays. I want to know if can tell the truth, balance a budget, work with diverse people and ideas, have the ability to truly listen to the voting masses, and have — oh no, a dirty word: COMMON SENSE.

But to publicly pose such a BLATANT political-religious question on a church signboard is a clear as crystal violation of the separation of church and state. I was fed up with such church signage against gay marriage, civil unions, and abortion that popped up in recent elections around the country and right here in Tennessee. This just ticks me off. Sends me off the Richter scale. Why? Because this churches and all the others who receive massive tax breaks as non-profit religious entities are promoting their politics on your dollars and mine. This irresponsible and vicious taunt of a viable presidential candidate in 2008 is no different than Catholic churches reading letters from their Diocesan bishops against civil unions and gay marriage legislation (and the candidates supporting it) from the pulpit during Sunday morning Mass (which happened all over Massachusetts several years ago).

We all have opinions as individuals and as a part of the religious structures we support and endorse, but that does not give any of those faith-based structures the right to get into a public political fray. Today, more and more churches and religious-based non-profit organizations [read tax-exempt] are tossing their hat into the ring in an attempt to influence legislators and legislative actions. It has to stop. And since money talks, let’s go for the jugular on this one.

Churches (of all denominations and persuasions): If you want to be a political lobbying organization, file the papers and change your status and tax rates accordingly.

Become a lobbyist or lobbying organization.

Designate yourself as a profit-making center and be free to say whatever you want about anything you want and lobby for it. Pay the same taxes as other businesses and organizations with an agenda.

Otherwise, stick to the spiritual beliefs and moral values your particular faith espouses and leave irresponsible innuendo and public policy in the public arena, not on the church sign on your front lawn.

I am a feminist, and anti-war activist, and environmentalist, and advocate for human rights. I have an arena, a platform, a stage for that. I don’t foist my opinions on you through my church and its property or via my spiritual organizations while claiming tax breaks as a non-profit religious institution. I deeply resent the blatant politicking stamped on the face of non-profit religious groups.

Does anyone out there want to petition for penalties and potential loss of non-profit status for such obvious violations of the separation of Church and State?

Though he is concerned about out society, he doesn’t use the pulpit to endorse candidates for political office. Of Senator Clinton, Senator Obama and Senator McCain visited his congregation, they would be introduced but not given the opportunity to speak, and it would the same for any other dignitary or social leader.

“I am a strong believer in honoring the people who have served and who are giving their lives to run … if one of the Presidential candidates attended, they would certainly deserve honor. We would introduce them and I would certainly put in a good word whether they were Democrat or Republican.” — Rev. Osteen

He further advises and follows that principle of separation of faith and government. In an interview he stated “It’s fine for Christians to expose their views” but warns against bringing religion and politics into the pulpit. His principles include issues that influence society. The endorsement of issues is recognized as the mission of the church to be prophetic and to be the conscience of the nation and not merely another national cheerleader.

In heated debate on the relationship between the church and politics, Rev. Osteen presents a refreshing point of view that is a testimonial to his spirituality and maturity.

Day after exhausting day this mid-western state was daily on TV and in the news. It overshadowed and neglected a recent but equally newsworthy event, yet this eclipsed event deserves an equally careful hearing and analysis.

The issue: a judgment by the 8th Circuit Court.

Americans United [for Separation of Church and State] won a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Iowa Corrections Department’s support for Charles Colson’s InnerChange, a prison program that trains inmates in evangelical Christianity.

“Faith-based” initiatives, which propose turning the provision of social services over to religious groups, threaten individual rights and could lead to taxpayer support of religious ministries. In those cases where religious groups want to take tax aid to provide relief, they should first agree to run secular programs and drop all forms of religiously based discrimination from their hiring policies.” – Americans United for Separation of Church and State

This Iowa court rendered a profound, sharp and ringing endorsement on on religion and the use of tax-dollars to support and subsidize the “Inner Change Freedom Initiative” [ICFI] in Iowa prisons.

The ICFI’s mission, with a fundamentalist indoctrination tenet, inclination and proclivity, is to minister to prisoners. Perhaps you already know that Charles Colson of Watergate fame [and a convicted criminal] is the author and presenter of this type of evangelizing and proselytizing program. While the program of ICFI is admissible to reduce recidivism among inmates, the use of tax dollars to accomplish it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Evidence at the trial showed that the ICFI in Iowa disparaged Catholics and their staff members declared that Catholics were not Christians. The non-evangelical Christians didn’t escape scathing criticism either. Again, the staff referred to them as lost, pagan and those who serve the flesh.”

The ICFI is free to publicly endorse their own religious beliefs and publicly degrade the religious beliefs and faith of others. But in their prison ministry they received tax dollar support and special benefits to carry out this discriminatory outreach.

After the hearings and pronouncements by three judges, one prophetic voice summarized the significance of the ruling when he stated “I expected the decision to have a huge impact in support of our own fight to combat federal and state officials’ efforts to expand taxpayer funding of religious social services … and to halt the expansion of government aided religious ‘rehabilitation’ programs in prison more specifically.”

Whatever our faith — Baptist, Lutherans, Christians, Presbyterians — let us as U.S. citizens protect the U.S. Constitution. There are efforts to funnel our tax dollars to faith groups who in turn discriminate in their hiring and try to use social services and programs to push a personal religious agenda. With vigilance and courage to confront such efforts, the state of Tennessee will avoid such sectarian goals.

On Thursday, July 12, Rajan Zed became the first person to offer a Hindu prayer on the Senate floor. Sadly, the prayer was disrupted by “Christian patriots” who were eventually arrested on the misdemeanor charge of disrupting Congress. This “protest” was an utter disgrace to not only the Senate, but to Christianity as a whole.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Fox News reported:

Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.

“If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus,” Reid said, “all they have to do is think of Gandhi,” a man “who gave his life for peace.”

“I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace,” said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush’s Iraq policies.

Now, I don’t think Senator Reid really understands that the Hindu religion doesn’t worship “our heavenly father.” But that’s not the point. His invitation to bring Chaplain Zed to pray on the Senate floor was a first for the Senate. The invitation drew the ire of the American Family Association as well as other fundamentalist groups.

It’s not clear what group the protesters were associated with, but their disruptive shouts were a true embarrassment to Christians everywhere. They yelled from the visitors gallery, “This is an abomination!” and were eventually arrested.

MSNBC reported the content of the prayer as well:

Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: “We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.”

As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, “Peace, peace, peace be unto all.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. As a Christian, I think that these three protesters are a disgrace and an utter embarassment to not only Christianity but to Christians everywhere. They should be ashamed of themselves, and I’m glad they were arrested. Sadly, I’m not surprised that this happened. 

Of course, the concept of “peace” is offensive to many fundamentalists, which is unfortunate. What concerns me more than anything is the notion that many of today’s Christians have that insists that the United States was founded to be a “Christian nation.”

If this were so, then why are the words “God” or “Bible” completely nonexistent in the Constitution?

Yes, many of the framers were Christian. John Adams and John Jay were both very passionate in their faith. They also understood that faith was a personal matter of the individual. And the individual expressions of faith (indeed forms of Christianity were the most prevalent) was meant to be exactly that: Individual.

When the first amendment was ratified, it clearly stated that “Congress would pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It would keep the federal government out of the religious affairs of the people. It would also prevent having one religion elevated above any others.

The modern idea of twisting this as a “Christians-only club” is as much a perversion as it would be to say that all of the framers were Christian. Clearly, they were not. More importantly, Christianity as most modern evangelicals understand it did not exist until the early 1800s with the rise of Charles Finney.

As I discussed this once, someone pointed out the final article of the Constitution:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America…

It seems that some Christians insist that the usage of the phrase “the Year of our Lord…” was indicative that this was intended to be a Christian nation. This is about as logical as insisting that because the sky is blue, this was intended to be a blue-skinned nation. Why is this?

Quite simply, it was a tradition of the time. Just as this is the year 2007 A.D. In fact, the Latin phrase ano domini translates to “the year of our Lord.” This was simply the calendar year—nothing more, and nothing less. It’s about as religious as saying, “God bless you” to a person who’s just sneezed.

Thomas Jefferson wasn’t in the country when the Constitution was written, but his clear approval of the hands-off approach to religion was an indication that he understood it enough to write to the Danbury Baptist association when he was president that the first amendment “erects a wall of separation between church and state.”

Faith was an important part in the lives of early Americans, and each faith was protected. We should be careful not to try to put words in the framers mouths by quoting them out of context and making them say that they intended to found America as a “Christian nation.” Clearly, they did not.

In fact, the Treaty of Tripoli, proudly signed by John Adams (who also co-wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence) in 1796 has a particular statement in article 11:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

There is, however, no question that the Christian faith was deeply rooted in the culture of the late eighteenth century. This was just a few decades after the Great Awakening, during which men like Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield impacted the colonials through the power of the Holy Spirit in a profound way. Christian historians (including myself) believe that the Awakening prepared the hearts of the colonists for the long, bloody war that came with the Revolution.

One of the phrases I hear a lot is “original intent.” This is something that we have to be very careful of, especially since the “original intent” of the framers was clearly that only white men would have a say in what their country would look like. Radical ideas of women who vote, black men who vote and own property, and the end of slavery were far-reaching pipe dreams as far as the framers knew. Even Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.

The Constitution was written to allow some flexibility in several issues, and its interpretation clearly changes with time. During his 2000 Presidential campaign, Then-Vice President Al Gore spoke of it as a “living and breathing document” that changes with time. This is the opposite extreme. In reality, the constitution is neither rigid nor living. It’s deliberately specific in its language yet deliberately vague in its application.

Where the “original intent” interpretation fails in the relationship with Church and State is that there is little argument that the framers had a Christian worldview. We simply can not apply that same worldview to the multi-cultural society that is in the United States today.

Here in Clarksville, there are literally dozens of different countries represented in its residents. There are Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, as well as Christian residents. Yes, most of Clarksville’s residents are Christian. But our city is best reflected when we celebrate the spiritual diversity of the region. Such is the same with the Senate.

This really isn’t all that different from last year’s brouhaha over Keith Elliston’s swearing-in ceremony where he placed his hand on a Quran instead of the Bible. Interestingly enough, the copy of the Quran that he used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson (By the way, such ceremonies are common, but are not the “official” swearing in, which is done on the Congress floor en masse).

Clearly, even if it was in the days of the Framers, the United States is clearly no longer a Christian nation. It’s important that we respect the intent of the framers and their flexibility by keeping faith where it belongs: in the churches and hearts of the American people, and out of government. They knew then just as we know now that when government meddles in religious affairs, it will only result in tyranny.

Just imagine what kind of a country those three protesters would have us live in. I sure wouldn’t want any part of it.