Americans United strangely silent
The Poet Omar on Feb 16 2007 at 4:43 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Foreign affairs, Religion and theology, The Poet Omar's Page
Many people in the US have become aware, some more recently than others, of the antics of alleged separation of church and state group, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. They have formally existed since 1947 and claim to be non-partisan, non-sectarian advocates of the absolute separation of religion from politics. They also claim independence from any larger group or political body. See their director, Rev. Barry Lynn’s letter here explaining these points.
I question AU’s dedication to these points, however, as well as their claim to be unaffiliated with other groups. Rev. Lynn is a pastor from the liberal wing of the United Church of Christ, considered left-leaning in its approaches to theological and political issues. They have had numerous dust-ups with conservative groups and the Simon Wiesenthal Center whom the UCC accused of being involved in conspiracies. Lynn is also no simple man of the cloth, but rather a Georgetown trained attorney with a resume that includes working as legislative counsel for the UCC’s Washington, D.C. office, assistance to the UCC’s legal office in providing aid to draft dodgers, and a seven year stint as legislative counsel for the ACLU’s Washington, D.C. office. Clearly, this is a slick, sophisticated, “inside-the-beltway” player. Given the background of its director, it makes the claim that AU has no ties to the ACLU or the UCC seem questionable.
All of this to say that the AU is a great deal similar to Lynn’s former employer, the ACLU. It prides itself on being non-partisan and fighting only for separation of church and state, but, like the ACLU, is highly selective in its choice of battles. Students wanting prayer at graduations must be opposed tooth and claw (see Lynn’s statements here, here, here, and here ), but US church leaders demanding an end to the Iraq War, pressuring the United States government to adopt specific strategies in conducting said war, and throwing their support against a war which the United States Congress authorized is apparently kosher as far as Lynn and the AU are concerned.
Searches of the AU’s website produced no objections (or any reference at all for that matter) to any of the following official statements or position papers : US Council of Catholic Bishops, the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church, and the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA (a multi-denominational group), among others. Where is the AU’s vehement objection? Where is Barry Lynn’s fire and righteousness in condeming an outright push by organized religion to directly influence politics in the US? …crickets chirping…
Seems that maybe ole Rev Barry is a might bit selective in his choice of issues, eh? In fact, I find that many of the anti-religion leftist hit groups follow pretty much the same strategy as the non-partisan AU. When religious leaders and groups support issues that the left opposes such as pro-life activism, abstinence education, and opposition to euthanasia, the left howls and moans about the American theocracy and how the religious right is conquering America. On the other hand, when religious leaders voice their support for left-friendly issues such as ending the war in Iraq, banning the death penalty, and increasing funding for “social justice issues,” the usual hit groups are nowhere to be found.
This calls into question the integrity of the AU. Americans United for Separation of Church and State claim to be non-partisan. They claim to take no marching orders from, say the DNC or the ACLU, yet they seem overjoyed to attack issues that support conservative beliefs. At the same time, issues that clearly fall under the umbrella of separation of church and state that happen to be in support of leftist positions are totally untouched by the AU. I think it’s time that the good Reverend Lynn take an honest look at himself and his organization. It’s never too late to repent, right Reverend?
Sphere: Related Content10 Responses to “Americans United strangely silent”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
The View From the Bluff: Lance’s Economic and Finance Blog
Sorry Omar, you’ll have to enlighten me. For I am not getting the connection.
It is not partisan to be against the Iraq war.
It does not violate the tenets of a separation of church and state to be against the Iraq war. Or any other war. Or any other issue.
When one gets into separation of church and state issues is when one has a religious organization endorsing a political office occupant or nominee, and also the endorsement of a particular party or otherwise organization.
Which they obviously still are able to do, they would just be accountable to tax law.
I’m not an expert on Lynn or his organization, but from what I’ve read or seen, it’s primary concern is having a particular religious doctrine enter into public, tax payer funded, arenas.
Like public funded schools… or city council… or the police department, etc.
Something which his organization feels strongly about. And no doubt you would estimate myself being in agreement.
I don’t care about Christmas trees outside City Hall, but a tax payer funded Lord’s Prayer between Home Ec and Gym class… come on, man. Be reasonable.
Objection to what?
Having an opinion!?
Forgive my laziness, but is there an endorsement for a political party or party member in those links that you demand Lynn to be outraged over? Is there a demand for a particular religious doctrine to be entered into the public arena?
I’m sorry, but I ask you to be more specific.
Also, if you feel that there needs to be private oversight policing the left of church and state issues, perhaps you should be more concerned with the lack of such an entity, than what with another private entity is not doing.
After all, I have been reminded that this private publication is under no fairness doctrine. So why should anyone listen to cries about other private organizations having none?
While it’s entirely possible, even probable, that AU is not as non-partisan as they would have us believe, I don’t find the contrasted cases listed to be demonstrative of that.
I’m fairly picky on what, to me, constitutes ‘establishment of religion’ in politics/legislation. Simply because a position on an issue is espoused by a group which is religious doesn’t make that particular position a violation of the separation of church and state. For example, most Catholic organizations support laws against murder, and that view is based to a large extent on religious precepts. That doesn’t mean homicide laws should be struck down as unconstitutional.
Prayer in school is a clear question of establishing explicitly religious behavior. OIF is not. Now, if OIF were expressly for the purpose of ‘bringing The Good Word to the heathen,’ that would be another matter, as would a legislative attempt to label it unacceptable due to being ‘offensive to Islam.’ Not having read the position papers linked, it’s possible I missed someone doing just that, but I doubt it.
It’s a fine line, I know. People often derive their views of what’s right and what’s wrong, what to support and what to oppose, from their religion. At what point does the legitimate practice of standing up for one’s principles become the illegitimate one of trying to foist your religion on everyone else?
Simple opposition to a particular war by an individual may not be partisan. Then again, it might be. It depends on the individual. That isn’t the issue here, however.
Major organizations that are official representatives of worldwide religions are pressuring United States government officials to make decisions strictly based on the religious beliefs of those groups. The USCCB position paper, in particular, lays out specific policy and strategy that they request/demand that the US government and its military follow. To suppose that these organizations are not using their lobbying power to influence decisions is fairly naive at best. This is the very definition of separation of church and state. Or is it acceptable that Congress and the President take their marching orders from Rome? Or Canterbury? Or wherever?
Certainly. The implication of these statements of position is that church leaders will not/do not support any US official who endorses a strategy that does not agree with their own. Notice the Episcopal General Convention’s direct offering of political support for a withdrawl of US troops from Iraq in support of Congressional proposals from supposedly bi-partisan sources. Also notice this blatant statement :
That’s not only an indictment of the US government and military, but also an open political condemnation and endorsement of those politicians who oppose the war. The National Council of Churches of Christ statement is even more blatant. It concludes with a statement indicating that its leaders will give public support to political policies aimed at immediate withdrawl of troops and in support of what amounts to the, “Bush lied; Kids died,” position. Again, I ask is this separation of church and state?
Religious organizations are diretly involving themselves in the politics of the US. I don’t think anyone doubts that. What I question is the commitment of the AU to fight that involvement in a non-partisan manner. Reverend Lynn has fits when a bunch of kids at a football game say a prayer. Why isn’t he in seizures when the official governing bodies of religious organizations apply direct pressure on the US government to obey their directives (based on religious beliefs)?
Also, in unrelated news, I saw this story and was quite concerned about your economic well-being, Pogue. I pray that this has not affected you.
Ah, but that’s not quite where it ends, is it Achillea? These organizations have gone beyond merely issuing opinion papers. They are actively working to influence the US government toward their positions. While we often hear about the “Jewish lobby,” or even the “Muslim lobby,” we rarely hear about the fairly substantial lobbying powers of the Catholic Church and other Christian organizations. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not condemning the various churches here. I’m simply pointing out that their power (and the will to use that power) extends quite a bit beyond simply condemning the war, then praying quietly in a corner.
Ah ha! I quite agree with you that this is certainly a key issue that needs to be examined in much more detail. It isn’t really the point of my post here, however. I’m merely pointing out that the AU is not a charming little non-partisan group dedicated to removing the influence of those nasty old religious types from our governmental processes. Rather, they are a left-wing hit group that attacks any perceived conservative issues (prayer at public events, Ten Commandments displays, etc.) and very conveniently ignores left-wing issues emanating from the same perceived problem (religious groups meddling in politics).
But we have to remember the whole bargain with regards to church and state. Having government sanction a church for it’s lobbying in any way would be a violation of the bargain. In the end, chrches’ right to free speech and to seek redress for grievances adds up to nothing more than it’s members’ access to these rights.
This isn’t to say that just because a church has a right to say or do something they should say or do it. The fruits of liberty are often annoyiing, but it’s worth it.
yours/
peter.
How’s this for being direct to the point… Barry Lynn has been investigating his own church (the United Church of Christ) for many months but won’t speak out:
From UCCtruths.com:
October 8, 2006
Barry Lynn “concerned” about deal between UCC and Connecticut
I had a great discussion with Rev. Barry Lynn following tonight’s Church and State discussion forum in Columbus. Lynn, the Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and I discussed AU’s investigation of a $100,000 grant from the State of Connecticut to help defray the convention center costs for the UCC’s 2007 General Synod in Hartford. Lynn, an ordained UCC minister, made it clear that he was “concerned” about the arrangement.
Lynn and I compared and contrasted the deal with a similar arrangement that the State of Maryland made to host a Baptist convention in June. In that deal, a $150,000 state grant was used to help defray the costs of transportation for the group’s convention in Baltimore. Lynn called the grant “totally inappropriate and clearly unconstitutional. Religious groups should pass the collection plate to their own members, not the taxpayers.â€
In the UCC case, Lynn said “There are a number of questions that need to be answered. Is there a precedence in Connecticut of other religious groups receiving similar grants or is the UCC an exception?”
While secular groups regularly receive grants from states to attract convention business, Lynn made it clear that there is a distinction between secular and religious groups being the beneficiary of these types of grants.
_______________
BARRY LYNN IS A HYPOCRITE!
They are actively working to influence the US government toward their positions.
As does any special interest group, religious or not. Much as I may oppose those positions, they have the same right to advocate for them as anybody else. Unless those positions involve the government mandating or proscribing religious activities, it doesn’t violate the separation of church and state.
I am not sure that Omar disagrees about that. It is Barry Lynn who has a problem with it. Omar seems to me to be saying his beef is that AU is overwhelmingly concerned with “conservative,” as defined by Lynn and his pals, religious influence. I think that is pretty clearly the case.
Personally I have no problem with religious influence in politics and think Barry Lynn’s conception of the separation of church and state is pernicious. I have never understood why philosophical and ideological positions derived from a religious basis should be more dangerous or inappropriate for our politicians or political than any other. Many others are religious in nature, if not part of the traditional religious establishment. Much of the environmental movement for example.
Many political movements are moral movements, for good or ill, and I see no reason they should have a preferred position over religiously based moral movements either.
If we want to reduce the influence or funding that religious groups get, such as the grant above, the answer is to reduce the number and scope of grants to be given to various parties, regardless of the motivation animating the recipients. It is that power given the government that is the issue, not that some who might influence that power are religious.
First, thanks to Gary for mentioning the Lynn writeup on UCCtruths.com. My understanding of the UCC is that it is very much a church divided at the present time, much like the Episcopal Church. Its leadership appears to favor one direction, while its many adherents seem to favor another. For their sake, I hope that the rift is healed soon.
Secondly, Lance is exactly right here. I’m not trying to stir the pot on the separation of church and state issue, per se. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the AU in general and Barry Lynn in particular. Many left-wing anti-religion groups are all too pleased to keep silent or even endorse religious groups that support their political agendas. Yet this same type of church activism gives some leftists apoplexy when the cause is generally in line with conservative beliefs. That is rank hypocrisy and insisting that an organization that uses such tactics is non-partisan is simply the politics of bad faith.
This site covers almost identical stuff… That’s strange…