OK kids. It's time to inject a little controversy. I've noticed that the blogs have bogged down a bit.
Most of you who have been folowing the blogs know that I center on basically two things. Politics & religion. Some have agreed, some not. Regardless, you have all contributed your thoughts & that is the art & science of communication & conversation. Considering some of the comments & replies from some of you concerning these issues, it is apparent that there are many divergent views, all of which should be respected. I came across something I thought was very interesting. Not in or of itself, but for future possibilities.
I will tell you now that I did a copy & paste of an article I came across on the web site of Americans United for the Separation of church & State. I am fuly aware that there are some who will consider this an unreliable, biased source. That's only fair. If you can provide another source to refute this account, please feel free to offer what you have.
The subject is the separation of church & stae. People like me, agnostics & athiests, use this principle in order to keep our country from becoming a theocracy, among other things. On the other hand, Christian evangelicals have maintained that since the phrase, "separation of church & state," does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, & it doesn't, it should not be considered a valid criteria. Well, I have always maintained that their arguement was a bunch of monkey muffins. It is shallow, intellectually irresponsible, playing to the converted grandstanding. Using their thinking, if one can call it that, garage door openers are also not mentioned in the Constitution. Are we to consider them not valid? Now here is where it starts to be interesting. It seems that they have changed their minds because it now is to their advantage. I offer the folllowing & ask you for your comments.
Hypocrite Alert!: ACLJ Decides Church-State Separation Isn’t So Bad After All [1]September 28th 2007
It will be interesting to see if the ‘mythical’ principle of church-state separation comes riding to the ACLJ’s rescue.
Over the years, TV preacher Pat Robertson has said some pretty mean things about the wall of separation between church and state.
During a 2002 meeting of the Christian Coalition, for example, Robertson told the crowd, “We have had a distortion imposed on us over the past few years by left-wingers who have fastened themselves into the court system. And we have had a lie foisted on us that there is something embedded in the Constitution called separation of church and state.”
Top Robertson attorney Jay Sekulow has echoed these attacks. In a 2004 article, he wrote, “Too often, the ‘separation of church and state’ phrase is allowed to take the place of our actual constitutional provisions.” He called it a “guise” to take away the rights of Christians.
It came as quite a surprise, therefore, when attorneys with the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a legal group Robertson founded, recently tried to employ the separation of church and state in their defense.
ACLJ attorneys are representing the Rev. Jerry Sutton of Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville. A faction of 54 church members argues that Sutton is authoritarian and that he has misused church funds to pay for personal travel and his daughter’s wedding reception.
The dissidents demanded to access to certain church records and were denied. So they went to court. The angry members say a Tennessee law that deals with access to the records of non-profit groups should apply in this case.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Larry Crain, senior counsel for the ACLJ, is employing the separation of church and state in Sutton’s defense.
Reported [2] the Nashville Tennessean, “Crain said in a letter refusing their request that they had no right to the records given the separation of church and state, as well as constitutional rights to privacy of members whose names are on church rolls.”
Nashville resident Thomas Wesley wasn’t fooled. In a letter to the Tennessean, Wesley noted that Two Rivers hosted a Religious Right rally called “Justice Sunday II” in 2005. Wesley pointed out that speakers at this event “invited the audience to adopt the dangerous belief that scripture should guide Supreme Court decisions, not the rule of law. Thus, the audience’s respect for the importance of church-state separation was diminished.”
Observed Wesley, “Ironically, Mr. Sutton’s lawyer has invoked the doctrine of church-state separation as a legal defense to a lawsuit stemming from church members’ alleging financial malfeasance. Cited in an effort to prohibit the disclosure of financial records to the plaintiffs, church-state separation conveniently transforms from a liberal ‘myth’ into a bona fide legal concern. Alas, the reverend resurrects church-state separation from its slandered ruin and asks that it be his legal salvation in his own time of trouble.”
The court case is pending. It will be interesting to see if the “mythical” principle of church-state separation comes riding to the ACLJ’s rescue. If so, perhaps Robertson, Sekulow and the whole gang at the ACLJ will stop throwing mud at this great constitutional principle.
That would be nice, but I won’t hold my breath.