Tennessee Burning
One particularly egregious example is happening in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where the local Muslim community has faced vehement opposition in trying to build a place of worship. The outrage seems to have taken a violent turn with the news of a fire at the mosque construction site this weekend. The investigation into arson is still pending, but two previous acts of vandalism at the site suggest the fire may be connected to recently escalating protests. In an even more chilling turn, members of the embattled congregation reported hearing gunfire while they gathered at the site yesterday.
Political leaders play an important role in creating conditions that either foster or discourage this kind of violence. Just last month, Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsay explained that his opposition to the mosque didn't violate his support for religious freedom because "you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion or is it a nationality, way of life or cult."
At least those who oppose the Park51 project in New York have tried to insist that their stances are not based in Islamophobia. Unintentionally or not however, their nuance seems to be lost on a significant number of Americans who are unfamiliar with and afraid of their Muslim neighbors. Continuing to stoke the fears of the nation with talk of sharia law, "victory mosques" and connections between American Muslims and terrorists will only further incite those who see Islam as a threat and violence the only solution.
It's time for pundits and political leaders who have spoken out against Park51 to stand up and denounce this rhetoric and violence. Even those who disagree on the particular politics of Park51 should be able to affirm that Islam is a peaceful religion and that we have nothing to fear from our Muslim-American neighbors. In the absence of such statements from leaders, we can only infer that they are happy to use some Americans' dangerous misconceptions for their own political ends.
Words of enduring wisdom
Stories this week about the demagoguery surrounding the Cordoba House Islamic Center and the widespread, mistaken belief that President Obama is a Muslim reminded of Colin Powell's forceful words about then-Senator Obama, anti-Muslim bigotry, and Muslim Americans shortly before the 2008 election in an appearance on Meet the Press:
And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards-Purple Heart, Bronze Star-showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way.
His words are as poignant and relevant today as they were two years ago.
Collective guilt
Interfaith Youth Core President Eboo Patel had a telling exchange with an opponent of the Cordoba House/Park 51 Islamic Center and a CNN anchor Sunday night, which laid bare much of what's at the core of opposition to the proposed center. The anchor, Don Lemon, suggested that the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims should preclude the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan. Watch it:
Glenn Greenwald said in a Salon post about the segment:
This campaign is nothing different than all of the standard, definitively bigoted efforts to hold entire demographic groups of people responsible for the aberrational acts of a small percentage of individual members.
To me, this cuts to the very heart of it. The crux of the opposition to Cordoba House is collective guilt. The fact that the terrorists who killed thousands of people -- including Muslims - on September 11th were Muslims themselves is used to argue that an entirely separate group of Muslims should not build a house of worship near the scene of the horrific attack. Patel responded:
The vile terrorists who attacked the United States deserve one name, and one name alone, and that is vile terrorists. And the American Muslims who are police officers and firefighters, who coach little league and serve on the PTA, deserve another name, an honored name, and that is fellow American.
"The writ of our Founders must endure"
Speaking at an Iftar dinner at the White House last night, President Obama expressed strong support for the planned Cordoba House Islamic center and mosque in Lower Manhattan near Ground Zero. He said in part:
Recently, attention has been focused on the construction of mosques in certain communities - particularly in New York. Now, we must all recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of lower Manhattan. The 9/11 attacks were a deeply traumatic event for our country. The pain and suffering experienced by those who lost loved ones is unimaginable. So I understand the emotions that this issue engenders. Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.
But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.
The full transcript of his remarks is here.
These words come on the heels of outspoken support for Corboda House from diverse members of the faith community, most recently from an interfaith group of more than 40 religious leaders and scholars rebuking those who have stoked fear and bigotry to build opposition to the center, and calling for "a civil dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims committed to a future guided by the principles of compassion, justice and peace."
The New York Times reported today that "Sharif el-Gamal, the developer on the project, said, 'We are deeply moved and tremendously grateful for our president's words.'"
President Obama's remarks will also be used as fodder for demagogues who exploit fear, bigotry and the tragedy of 9/11 to score political points and demonize Muslims. The White House surely is aware of this, and did the right thing by standing up for the dignity of the Muslim community and the religious liberty of all Americans in the face of political controversy.
Proposition 8 and religious liberty
One of the reasons conservative faith groups often give for their opposition to same-sex marriage is the fear that they will be forced to recognize or perform such unions in spite of their beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality. However, according to the language of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning Proposition 8, such worries are unwarranted (h/t Cathy Lynn Grossman):
Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Welton Gaddy, a Baptist minister, further explains the significance of the ruling's respect for religious liberty:Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter. Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.
...Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples. Prior to Proposition 8, no religious group was required to recognize marriage for same-sex couples.
We are pleased to see that Judge Vaughn Walker was sensitive to the concerns of people of faith who oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds but that he recognized, as do we, that their religious freedom will not be impacted by the legalization of same-gender marriage. America's diverse religious landscape leaves room for a variety of theological perspectives on same-gender marriage; indeed, some faiths enthusiastically support it and others vehemently oppose it. Under this ruling, as with any constitutionally-based marriage equality law, no religion would ever be required to condone same-gender marriage, and no member of the clergy would ever be required to perform a wedding ceremony not in accordance with his or her religious beliefs. But in a country that guarantees both religious freedom and "justice for all," the laws of our land must be based on what is fair and equal, not simply on the religious views of any faith community. Today's ruling leaves religious marriage untouched while allowing same-gender couples access to an important right currently enjoyed only by heterosexual couples - the right to civil marriage recognized under law.
Pluralism 1, Bigotry 0
The vitriolic opposition to the proposed Cordoba House Islamic center in Lower Manhattan (the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque") has been nothing short of shameful - Newt Gingrich labeled it "deliberately insulting," Sarah Palin called it a "provocation" and Cal Thomas described it as a celebration of 9/11 (seriously!). But defenses of the center have been as moving as the attacks have been ugly. Today's New York Times editorial praising New York's Landmark Preservation Commissions approval of the project said it well:
It has been disturbing to hear and read the vitriol and outright bigotry surrounding the building of a mosque two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So it was inspiring when New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9 to 0 on Tuesday to reaffirm one of the basic tenets of democracy: religious tolerance.
Instead of caving in to the angry voices -- many but not all of them self-promoting Republican politicians -- commissioners paved the way for construction of the mosque and Islamic center. It was not just the right thing to do, it was the only thing to do.
And New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave an inspiring speech yesterday in response to the commission's decision, saying
Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation - and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our City and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshiping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right...
Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure - and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God's love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest.
The contrast between this embrace of America's highest ideals and the Right's pandering to our society's most shameful instincts could hardly be more stark.
Now what exactly does a "secular-socialist machine" look like?
Today's Washington Post features a polemical and off-base column from none other than Newt Gingrich, in which he claims that "the Obama-Pelosi-Reid system is clearly a secular-socialist machine" and that "Obama is the most radical president in American history."
Gingrich claims that President Obama-- a Christian who is outspoken about his personal religious beliefs -- is "secular" because Obama described the U.S. as a "secular country that is respectful of religious freedom," and because he appointed David Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. (Hamilton ruled on a church-state case that caused a bit of a brouhaha on the right.)
It's pretty ironic that Gingrich's piece runs right on the heels of the announcement that President Obama's administration will fight to keep the National Day of Prayer, appealing a federal judge's recent ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
Yep, that sounds exactly like the actions of a "secular-socialist machine."
It's also easy enough to address the ridiculousness of both of Gingrich's claims directly. In fact, Dan tackled the Judge Hamilton issue quite well a while back. And I think it's pretty clear that the President understands the importance of faith to the life of our country. (Also, last year in the same speech Gingrich quotes, the President also said "I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is -- although as I mentioned, we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation -- we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.")
That doesn't sound so radical to me.
Fall Into the God Gap
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported on a study released by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs addressing the role of religion in foreign policy and the need to close the 'God Gap' in foreign policy.
"Religion," the task force says, "is pivotal to the fate" of such nations as Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Iran, Nigeria and Yemen, all vital to U.S. national and global security.
Some specific recommendations cited:
-- Adding religion to the training and continuing education of all foreign service officers, diplomats and other key diplomatic, military and economic officials.
-- Empowering government departments and agencies to engage local and regional religious communities where they are central players in the promotion of human rights and peace, as well as the delivery of health care and other forms of assistance.
-- Address and clarify the role of religious freedom in U.S. foreign policy...some parts of the world -- the Middle East, China, Russia and India, for example -- are particularly sensitive to the U.S. government's emphasis on religious freedom and see it as a form of imperialism.
Needless to say, responses to the report have run the gamut, but a particular strand seems to have developed that caught my eye: blog posts such as "Foreign policy + religion = recipe for disaster" and "Please, no religion in foreign policy formation".
Stark lines drawn between 'religious freedom' and the inclusion of God strike me as precisely the problem the report is addressing (the report itself is 109 pages long and I admit to not having read it), and it echoes debates in domestic politics, which often pit conservative Christianity against no role for religion in politics. It goes to show that these issues and debates don't - and shouldn't - stop at the water's edge.
No more scripture on US weapons
Following an ABC News investigation and efforts from faith groups such as Faithful America and The Interfaith Alliance, the weapons manufacturer that had been putting Bible verses on gun sights used by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is changing its practices:
Trijicon, the gunsight maker that has imprinted Bible verse numbers on its scopes, has announced that it will no longer imprint the verses on the sides of scopes intended for the U.S. military, and will also provide clients with the kits to remove the Bible verse numbers from existing scopes.
Thanks to everyone who stood up to this misuse of faith -- including over 5,000 Faithful America members!
Keeping our faith in our sights
UPDATE: The manufacturer is now going to remove the Bible verses from the gun sights.
ABC Nightline News broke an unsettling story this weekend-- apparently, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps have been outfitting their troops with high-powered rifle sights that bear Biblical inscriptions.
When asked about it, the military seemed nonchalant. A military spokesman yesterday said, "This situation is not unlike the situation with U.S. currency... Are we going to stop using money because the bills have 'In God We Trust' on them? As long as the sights meet the combat needs of troops, they'll continue to be used."
Seems to me that's a faulty analogy which doesn't account for the fact that the purpose of the gun, unlike a dollar bill, is to inflict bodily harm upon another human being.
While there has been a slight change of tone since then--- a separate military spokesperson said, "We are aware of the issue and are concerned with how this may be perceived"-- the situation still gives me pause.
Obviously Trijicon, Inc., the firm producing the rifle sights, should be allowed to put whatever inscription on their product they like. But that the U.S. Armed Forces used taxpayer dollars to pay for these sights is troubling, not only from a constitutional perspective, but especially from a religious perspective.
It sounds like these inscriptions weren't just innocuous decorations on firearms. Michael Weinstein, a former Air Force attorney now with the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said that members of his group on active duty spoke of commanders who referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearms of Jesus Christ."
Regardless of one's views on the morality of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we can all agree that God's messages of love and hope for the world are a bad fit for a tool used to aim a rifle at another human being.
Sign Faithful America's petition to make your voice heard on this abuse of faith.
FRC falsely accuses Member of Congress of 'religious bigotry'
Earlier this evening the Family Research Council sent out a press release with the headline "FRC Calls On President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senator Reid to Repudiate Diana DeGette's Religious Bigotry," which stated
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins today called on President Obama and Congressional leaders to repudiate comments made by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) to The Hill's Michael O'Brien that "religiously-affiliated groups...should be shut out of the process" in the health care debate because of their support for the Stupak/Pitts amendment. She told The Hill, "Last I heard, we had separation of church and state in this country," she said. "I've got to say that I think the Catholic bishops and all of the other groups shouldn't have input."
Two problems with that.
1) Congresswoman DeGette's remarks didn't come from an interview with The Hill's Michael O'Brien. Rather, they came from O'Brien's report about DeGette's appearance on ABC News's "Top Line" broadcast today.
2) In that Top Line appearance, Congresswoman DeGette said religious groups should have input in the debate.
The Hill has issued a correction of their story. FRC should do the same.
I can understand why FRC would want to rebuke a Member of Congress for claiming that people of faith should be excluded from a political debate. What I can't understand is sending out a press release calling on the President of the United States and Congressional leaders to denounce a Congresswoman's "religious bigotry" without even bothering to check what the alleged bigot actually said. That doesn't take too much effort -- all you have to do is watch the video, which is easily found on the ABC News homepage. Accusing a public official of bigotry is serious business, and should be done cautiously, not opportunistically.
Here's a transcript of the portion of her interview that dealt with religious groups' role in the healthcare reform debate:
First Reactions to Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination to SCOTUS
Reactions to President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court are still rolling in.
Here are some highlights on issues related to the religious community:
The Washington Post reports that while Sotomayor "never forgot her modest background, and always identified with the disadvantaged" she is hard to pinpoint ideologically, and reaches her conclusions "through reason and carefully researched arguments."
A former colleague describes her:
"Liberal without being a flaming type of do-gooder or anything of the sort. To call her a centrist would not be accurate. To call her wild-eyed would also not be accurate. She is far too rational, far too interested in the underlying facts."
The Orthodox Union finds Sotomayor's stance on religious liberty "very encouraging" specifically citing her decisions in Flamer v. City of White Plains, in which she ruled in favor of a rabbi seeking to display a menorah in a city park, and her dissenting opinion in Hankins v. Lyght, which dealt with the Methodist church's retirement policy for its ministers:
She wrote: "Federal court entanglement in matters as fundamental as a religious institution's selection or dismissal of its spiritual leaders risks an unconstitutional 'trespass on the most spiritually intimate grounds of a religious community's existence." Given those concerns, she concluded that the federal statute was best read "not [to] apply to employment suits brought against religious institutions by their spiritual leaders."
Stephen Waldman notes her deliberative record on the abortion issue and points out that Americans United for Life issued a statement opposing her but did not base their opposition on specific case history.
David Brody at CBN does not think culture wars over abortion will derail Sotomayor.
Sotomayor is Catholic and attended Catholic schools. If confirmed, she will be the 6th Catholic on the Supreme Court. However, her faith is not likely to be a big part of the confirmation process. Catholics (in the US at large and on the Supreme Court in particular) are ideologically diverse. Catholic justices are generally not expected to make decisions based on their religious beliefs. Even conservatives like Scalia say they practice that principle:
"There is no such thing as a 'Catholic judge.' The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge...Just as there is no 'Catholic' way to cook a hamburger, I am hard pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic."
We'll have more reactions and information as they come out.
On Hamilton's Indiana Prayer Ruling
Obama announced his first judicial nomination today: David Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. David Brody was quick to report the nomination and suggest that it could "trigger a serious ideological fight" based largely on the fact that "Judge Hamilton was at the center of a controversy in 2005 when he ruled that the Indiana House of Representatives was not allowed to include prayers that included the name of Jesus."
Before the ideological fight begins, let's take a deep breath and take the time to look at the ruling in question (Anthony Hinrichs et al. vs. Speaker), and its context.
Hamilton ruled in this case that official prayers in the Indiana legislature that were sectarian - not just Christian, but any prayer limited to a specific faith tradition - violated the establishment clause of the US constitution. Anyone wishing to offer a sectarian prayer in a private or non-governmental setting has the right to do so, but in this context, because the lawmaker or chaplain offering the prayer would be doing so in a government-funded position, to a governmental body, Hamilton ruled that he or she is not speaking as an ordinary citizen, but rather is speaking on behalf of the government. Hamilton's ruling did not invalidate prayer in the legislative arena, however. He upheld the House's ability to offer a prayer so long as it is not religiously exclusive. Judge Hamilton wrote:
When the Founders of this Nation set the boundaries on the power of government, the first words they wrote in the Bill of Rights were "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." The Founders recognized that we are a people of many strong and vigorous faiths. They acted to protect the liberty to practice those faiths. The Founders also knew centuries of history in which religious conflicts had caused war and oppression. They recognized that even the best intentions of people of faith can lead to division, exclusion, and worse. And they recognized that a majority who sees its faith as true and benign can be tempted in a democratic republic to try to use the power and prestige of government to advance that faith in ways that would actually divide and exclude. ... If the Speaker chooses to continue any form of legislative prayer, he shall advise persons offering such a prayer (a) that it must be nonsectarian and must not be used to proselytize or advance any one faith or belief or to disparage any other faith or belief, and (b) that they should refrain from using Christ's name or title or any other denominational appeal.
The ruling found that the prayers offered at the state House consistently advanced Christian beliefs: "[T]he evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth." (The invocation that prompted the lawsuit was a sing-a-long to the gospel song, "Just a Little Talk With Jesus.")
More below the fold.
Standard and Sensible: Why the Stimulus Isn't Anti-Religious
For 46 years, spending bills in the U.S. Congress have included a stipulation barring the use of government funds for projects that are explicitly religious, like a chapel or a building used for sectarian instruction.
Since 1963, mind you-- 46 years!
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that Mike Huckabee is claiming, in an email to supporters, that the stimulus is "anti-religious"... for using the same provision that's been in use since 1963. [By the way, how awesome is the scanned Congressional annal with the 1946 law? Thanks Steve Benen!]
As Benen rightly points out, Huckabee is "bearing false witness."
This is standard practice, not some assault on Christianity. Also, it's standard practice that sensibly rooted in our Constitution, which protects against the establishment of religion (which some people seem to forget). Church/state balance is a tricky thing-- as shown by numerous court cases and the controversy over the faith-based initiatives office-- but the ban on direct government funding for something used for sectarian, religious purposes is, to put it bluntly, a no-brainer.
Al Gore on church/state separation in schools
Al Gore, who studied religion at Vanderbilt, talks on Current TV about why religion and government should be separate, particularly in schools.
Glenn Beck to Church: Shut up about politics
CNN's Glenn Beck isn't particularly civil or constructive, and he'd probably admit as much. What he wouldn't admit - but is no less true - is that he just doesn't know what he's talking about. Last night Beck had Rev. Walter Coleman of Chicago's Adalberto United Methodist Church (of New Sanctuary fame) on his show, and in addition to badgering, serially interrupting and being generally disrespectful to Coleman, Beck said his church should forfeit his church's tax-exempt status for "making political statements."
I can't fault Beck for not having a lawyer's command of tax-exemption guidelines, but that's no excuse for being transparently ridiculous. In Beckworld, is there no church speech on any political issue at all? Would Martin Luther King's 16th St. Baptist church have to forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about integration? Should the Catholic church forfeit its tax exemption for "making political statements" about abortion, war, or immigration? Or is it just people who irritate Beck on his show?
Just to clarify, Glenn, IRS guidelines don't prohibit political statements about issues; they prohibit campaigning for political candidates.
All Saints Weather Report: Chilly but Unclear by the Rev. Anne Howard
“IRS DROPS THE CASE” proclaims the homepage of All Saints Church, announcing that the Pasadena, California church is free of an IRS investigation into a 2004 election-eve sermon – but not exactly cleared of wrongdoing. In short, the IRS has said that the church’s tax-exempt status is no longer endangered, but that sermon was still an illegal intervention in the 2004 election.*
All Saints, continuing its courageous stand for freedom of the pulpit, is not content to let bygones be bygones. The church is demanding that the Treasury Department investigate several legal and procedural errors that might indicate intervention—politically-motivated intervention (imagine that!) – by the Department of Justice.In a press release posted on the church’s website the Church’s rector, the Rev. J. Edwin Bacon, Jr. said:
“While we are pleased that the IRS examination is finally over, the IRS has failed to explain its conclusion regarding the single sermon at issue. Synagogues, mosques, and churches across America have no more guidance about the IRS rules now than when we started this process over two long years ago. The impact of this letter leaves a chilling effect cast over the freedom of America’s pulpits to preach core moral values.”It’s that chilling effect that worries me and should be worrying us all. Just last week, I used the word “Democrats” in a blog, and a colleague advised that I take it out, lest my words be construed as intervention into the 2008 elections.
Read more. . .
Case Study: Easter weekend "Blogswarm against Theocracy"
Created by Blue Gal, Les Enragés, Mock, Paper, Scissors, Neural Gourmet, and Talk to Action, it is in support of - but not sponsored - the First Freedom First folks who make great videos on the First Amendment. It was a pretty simple idea, that each blog participating would write at least one post during the Easter weekend discussing how separation of church and state protects all Americans, religious and not.
The project is an interesting example of coordinated activity in the blogosphere. Blogging is becoming more widely accepted as a source of news and analysis, but the use of blogging for coordinated political advocacy is less well charted territory. Hopefully this campaign, which united bloggers of various belief systems and faiths, is only the beginning of coordinated action on a range of issues. It would be extremely encouraging if this or a similar group could move to playing defense against religious oppression to other pro-active campaigns.
Throughout the weekend, the BAT folks recorded several hundred posts in support of the separation of church and state. The Neoskeptic writes about Jefferson's role in shaping religion and American politics (appropriate that he's a UVA alum). Over at Street Prophets, wiscmass writes about the fruits of theocracy. Here's all Street Prophet diaries tagged "Blog Against Theocracy."
BIG STORY: Book from Bush Official Details White House Manipulation of Evangelical Christians
AUDIO: Senator Danforth on Faith and Politics
Is the IRS really paying attention to "all" saints?
Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Spending Time Wisely and Developing an Ideological Core (Part 7)
Faith in Public LIVE: Sullivan on Honest Disagreement and Prevention First (Part 6)
Faith in Public LIVE: XPatriated Texan on Casey, Kaine, and Deviation (Part 5)
Faith in Public LIVE: Amy Sullivan, XPatriated Texan and David Buckley (Part 1)
Hearing Diverse Voices on Vouchers
House Subcommittee Takes Up Public Expression of Religion