That exploding sound you hear is heads at the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State reacting to the rejection of their extreme interpretations of First Amendment law by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, which I wrote about here, involves a Texas law that mandates a minute of silence at the start of each school day, with a variety of purposes (“reflect, pray, meditate, or engage in any other silent activity….”) mentioned as possible uses of the time. The ACLU and AU saw creeping theocracy in this bill, while the court saw…no problem. A couple of passages in particular jumped out at me:
From the bill’s text, the obvious purpose of the pledges is to inculcate patriotism among students. Following the pledges with a minute of silence then allows time for reflection before starting the school day. Thus, at least from the statutory text, it seems that the purpose of the 2003 Amendments is to foster patriotism and provide for a period, if a student so desires, of thoughtful contemplation. Within this context, the purpose of § 25.082(d) is clearly permissible. In addition to adding “pray,” the new text adds “engage in any other silent activity that is not likely to interfere with or distract another student.” The neutral, non-coercive purpose of providing examples of permissible silent activities during the minute of silence at the start of a now more organized and contemplative school day is buttressed further by the fact that § 25.901, which still provides that “[a] person may not require, encourage, or coerce a student” vis-a-vis prayer, was intentionally left unamended.
As Justice O’Connor stated in her Wallace concurrence: “It is difficult to discern a serious threat to religious liberty from a room of silent, thoughtful schoolchildren.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 73. None of the courts examining moment of silence statutes have found that the primary effect has been to advance or inhibit religion, and the Crofts [the plaintiffs-DF] point to no case law that supports their contentions. Instead, the primary effect of the 2003 Amendments seems to be the same as the legislative purposes shown above: fostering patriotism and mandating a moment of quiet reflection. Especially when analyzing these Amendments in a facial challenge, we should not allow speculative fears to creep into our analysis.
“We should not allow speculative fears to creep into our analysis.” That should be printed on plaques and put over the doorways of every ACLU office in the country, as well as those at AU, People for the American Way, the Interfaith Alliance, and every other theocracy-obsessed secularist lobby in the country. (And before anyone else can say so, I’ll add, “and also over the doorways of the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Coalition for Traditional Values, and other conservative Christian organizations that sometimes go overboard in seeing secularist or anti-Christian boogeymen under every bed.”)
My good friend Hampton Morgan, who has commented here many times, has a new blog that focuses on “simple church” and the way it works out both ecclesially and in daily life. Hampton has a pastor’s heart, is a terrific preacher, and a gentle spirit whose example and wisdom have been an inspiration and encouragement to me for many years. I strongly recommend that you hie thee hence and check him out. You’ll be glad you did.
When the term “neo-conservative” first made its appearance in the late 1980s, it was sometimes defined as “a liberal who got mugged by reality.” No one is going to call David Gushee, Christian ethics professor at Mercer University and Christian left leader, a neo-conservative, but he is wondering whether to call a cop:
It’s no secret that a group of self-identified centrist or moderate evangelicals built a friendly relationship with Barack Obama and rejected the Christian right’s vilification of him. I am in this group, which has also included megachurch pastor Joel Hunter, evangelical lobbyist Rich Cizik, academic-activist Ron Sider and others.
This positive relationship has flowed from three factors.
First, Obama worked to establish a relationship with us by reaching out early in his run for the presidency. Second, he promised transformational leadership that could bridge longstanding gaps in the culture wars. Finally, Obama’s positions on a number of issues — such as torture, the climate, taxes, health care, Iraq and education — struck me, at least, as more consistent with broadly pro-life and pro-justice Christian values than the standard Republican alternative. (I remain convinced on that point.)
I knew from the beginning that if Obama took typical Democratic positions on abortion-related issues, this centrist evangelical friendliness toward him and his administration would be tested. I knew that during the campaign he had hewed closely to the standard Democratic pro-choice line. But his party’s platform also promised a commitment to abortion-reduction efforts, and he has echoed that language. Some of us continue to dream that he will roll out a major abortion-reduction initiative.
In fact, during the campaign (as well as during his time in the Illinois Senate) Obama had demonstrated that he was, if anything, to the left of the “standard Democratic pro-choice line.” His refusal, in the face of overwhelming evidence, to believe that children born alive as a result of botched abortions were being killed in Chicago hospitals, his opposition to legislation protecting such children, his advocacy of the Freedom of Choice Act–all this and more made clear to anyone who wasn’t wearing blinders were he stood on the issue, no matter what the campaign rhetoric said.
Such an initiative has not been offered. But what has occurred are a series of disappointingly typical Democratic abortion-related moves:
First, the new president followed precedent by overturning the so-called Mexico City policy, which basically had withheld U.S. Agency for International Development funding from any organization that discusses, advocates or provides abortion as a method of family planning….
Next, Obama revoked the “provider refusal” rule that President Bush promulgated by executive order very late in his presidency. The stated aim of this rule was to protect medical professionals from being forced as a condition of employment to provide health care services or information about services, such as abortion or contraception, that violated their consciences….
Then the president nominated Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to be head of the massive Department of Health and Human Services. The nomination of Sebelius, a Catholic whose bishop has condemned her stance on abortion, has gotten entangled in both national and Catholic abortion politics.
Sebelius has gone Obama one further, if that’s possible, by being a great friend and protector of the nation’s most notorious abortionist, George Tiller, a man whose record of ignoring the law and aborting anything that moves has resulted in lengthy investigations by the Kansas Attorney General, and who is now under indictment for violating state laws about post-viability abortions. Gushee says he “signed on to a statement that was viewed as offering uncritical support for Sebelius.” Oops.
Finally, last week Obama signed his long-promised reversal of Bush policies on embryonic stem cell research.
Mexico City, conscience clause, Sebelius, embryonic stem cells. In each case, I have been asked by friends at Democratic or progressive-leaning think tanks not just to refrain from opposing these moves, but instead to support them in the name of a broader understanding of what it means to be pro-life. I mainly refused.
But I do confess that my desire to retain good relationships with the Obama team has tempted me to give what was asked in return for the big payoff of a serious abortion-reduction initiative that I could wholeheartedly support.
I’ll bet when carnivals come to Atlanta, carnies are lined up at the gate saying to one another, “Is Gushee coming? Is that him? Oh, I can’t wait! He’ such a sucker!”
But this kind of calculation is precisely what has gotten Christian political activists in trouble in the past, not just for 40 years but for 1,600 years. We gain access to Caesar in order to affect policy; we hold onto access even if it involves compromising some of what we want in policy; in the end, we can easily forget what policies we were after in the first place. I think this definitely happened to the Christian right. It doesn’t need to be repeated by the Christian center or left.
Gushee needs to get his hands on a good history of the National Council of Churches. They’ve been playing this game a lot longer than the Christian right has been around. (Though I will say he is unquestionably correct about the Right; what puzzles me is why, given that he seems to have quite a bit in common with it, he insists in speaking of Christian political conservatives in strictly perjorative terms.)
He offers up a kind of “Here I stand” conclusion, saying that he’s going to continue to advocate for life, to which I say good for him. But then his last line returns to the theme of suckerdom:
President Obama, we need more than lip service on these crucial issues. Bring the transformational change your promises led us to hope for.
I suppose a couple of months aren’t enough for some people to learn. Gushee and at least some of his colleagues on the Christian left are going to have to get mugged a lot more times before they finally realize that they’ve been played. Barack Obama never had any intention of doing anything that would result in abortion reduction; to do so would enrage many in his core constituencies. There is nothing in his record that should have given Gushee and Company any hope on life issues. Instead, they fell for pretty words and noble sentiments. Just like all the other suckers.
Also known as St. Patrick’s Breastplate, the following is one of the most beloved prayers from the Christian tradition. It is especially appropriate for today, which, in case you live in a cave, is St. Patrick’s Day (and yes, even I am dressed in green). Pray it yourself, and open yourself to the beauty, truth, and love for Christ expressed in it.
I bind unto myself today
The strong name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
I bind this day to me for ever,
By power of faith, Christ’s Incarnation;
His baptism in the Jordan River;
His death on cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb;
His riding up the heavenly way;
His coming at the day of doom;
I bind unto myself today.
I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of the Cherubim;
The sweet ‘Well done’ in judgment hour;
The service of the Seraphim,
Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,
The Patriarchs’ prayers, the Prophets’ scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord,
And purity of virgin souls.
I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the starlit heaven,
The glorious sun’s life-giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea,
Around the old eternal rocks.
I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, his shield to ward,
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.
Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours
Against their fierce hostility,
I bind to me these holy powers.
Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart’s idolatry,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against the death-wound and the burning
The choking wave and the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till thy returning.
Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.
I bind unto myself the name,
The strong name of the Trinity;
By invocation of the same.
The Three in One, and One in Three,
Of whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
salvation is of Christ the Lord.
