Church & State

I used to live at the intersection of Church & State here in everybody's hometown. Church Street actually dead-ends at State Street. On the two corners opposite my old apartment are a microbrewery that used to be a grocery, and a grocery that used to be an armory.

(I'm sure there's a metaphor for something or other in all that, but I can't figure out what it is.)

In other news about the intersection of Church & State:

Justice Antonin Scalia, the Jerusalem Post reports, thinks the government ought to do more to support religion:

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used an appearance at an Orthodox synagogue in New York to assail the notion that the US government should maintain a neutral stance toward religion, saying it has always supported religion and the courts should not try to change that. ...

"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," said Scalia, considered among the court's staunchest conservatives. Neutrality as envisioned by the founding fathers, Scalia said, "is not neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of religion." ...

Scalia said expunging religion from public life would be bad for America, and that the courts, instead, should come around to most Americans' way of thinking. ...

"I suggest that our jurisprudence should comport with our actions," he said.

Remember when it was conservatives like Scalia who railed against what they called "relativism"? Now he advocates interpreting the Constitution according to majority opinion. Odd, that.

Scalia argues that the First Amendment does not require "neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; [but] between denominations of religion." Scalia's implied distinction here is between legitimate and illegitimate "religiousness." Once such a distinction is allowed, the next question is who gets to decide which "religiousnesses" are legitimate and which are not?

The justice provides a strong hint of which religions he views as legitimate in his use of the word "denominations." That's an oddly Protestant word for a Roman Catholic to be using in an Orthodox synagogue.

While the term also has generic denotations referring to religious structures in general, it cannot escape it's overwhelmingly Protestant connotations. The ELCA, the PCUSA and the UMC are "denominations" in a way that the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church are not. (Nor are the various Baptist conventions denominations. When I worked for the American Baptist Churches, it was considered taboo to refer to our convention with the D-word.) And while the word may be elastic enough to be applied to Orthodox Judaism, or Sikhism, or Sufi Islam, it does not fit such traditions as comfortably as it does the various Protestant sects.

Inevitably, Scalia's interdenominational version of neutrality leads to bias against "nonreligiousness." And just as inevitably, the category of "nonreligiousness" will expand to include those viewed (by Scalia or whoever else is acting as Caesar's pearly gatekeeper) as insufficiently religious, or religious in the wrong way.

Thus we come to today's other piece of news about the intersection of Church & State, as brought to our attention by Josh Marshall:

The United Church of Christ plans to run a major ad campaign in December to raise public awareness of the denomination. One of the ads is meant, in the words of a UCC press release, to convey the message "that -- like Jesus -- the United Church of Christ seeks to welcome all people, regardless of ability, age, race, economic circumstance or sexual orientation." ...

Yet, according to a press release out this evening from the UCC, both CBS and NBC have refused to air the ad because the subject matter is "too controversial." ...

CBS explained its decision, in part, as follows ...

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations ... and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

So corporate broadcasters are afraid to run an advertisement for a Mainline Protestant denomination because that denomination's religious beliefs do not conform with the officially sanctioned religiousness of the "Executive Branch."

That's the First Amendment in action, Scalia-style. All denominations are equal. But some are more equal than others.

Comments

[Peatey]

I'm reminded of Niebuhr in Christ and Culture. If it is culturally en vogue to proclaim one's religiosity, where is X?

[Felix]

Scalia is a Dominionist. He would like to see the US ruled by "God's Law" and the ten commandments. Sadly it seems that is the direction we are going. If the Constitution Restoration Act ever gets out of committee we will be well on our way.

[Scott]

The Scalias of the world bounce back and forth between "excluding religion from _public_life_" (a blanket activity that would step on people's rights to free speech and to vote their principles) and Dominionism (evangelicals are excluded unless they have absolute power, just like they are being persecuted when you complain about their actions).

[linnen]

It also sounds like Scalia believes that if you do not belong to any religion (e.g., if you are lapsed, agnostic, atheistic, or just believe in God but not in church), the State has the authority to designate a religion for you.

[bellatrys]

Scalia, strangely, is Roman Catholic, not Evangelical.

Though actually he's CoT - Church of Tashlan, St. Podsnap's Parish.

[Unabashed pagan liberal]

Yup. Al the signs are there. Within a decade, probably in Bush's third term, my family will be rounded up and forced into slavery and then shot in the twon square, only because we are not any kind of christ-ian.

It's right in front of us. Every one I talked to that is old enough to remember comments on the striking similarities between America now and Germany then. Heck, even Grover Norquist is on record saying that the WWII vets were all commie dupes and it's a good thing that they are all dying off now so we can get back to fascism. When you parse his statements he's saying 'Hitler was right and America was on the srong side of WWII'. I want that question put to him, 'was Hitler right?'

[Scott]

"Yup. Al the signs are there. Within a decade, probably in Bush's third term, my family will be rounded up and forced into slavery and then shot in the twon square, only because we are not any kind of christ-ian."

More likely, you'll be forced to convert at gunpoint to validate fundagelical beliefs, then be shot for being a false Christian - just like in Spain 500 years ago.

[BuffaloGal]

Government is not truly neutral about religion. Religion has a preferred status by virtue of being non-taxed. The only way for government to follow Scalia's plan of favoring religiosity would be to require people to belong to a church. Gov't would have to decide which churches would get official status. Hence, no way to do it without establishing state religion, even if it were several religions. I'll believe in Scalia's sincerity on this when I hear him include Wicca and Scientology as acceptable religions.

How is government going to favor religiosity over non-religiosity? Lower taxes for those who indicate an official religion on their 1040? Favored admission to public colleges? Favored hiring for public jobs? Free parking at meters? It would be blatant discrimination. None of this would fly, accept with fundamentalists who already think they're entitled. And fundies don't recognize Catholics as Christian, so Scalia might have a hard time being recognized as properly religious by our already fundie-dominated government.

[Beth]

Now to be fair, UPL, Grover Norquist never said the Greatest Generation were commie dupes, merely that they promoted un-American policies. And present-day America doesn't have much in common with pre-Nazi Germany. Our economy isn't in the toilet (yet), the most virulent anti-Semetic (or anti-Muslim) rhetoric is still confined to extremist hate groups like the neo-Nazis and Little Green Footballs. On the other hand, the prominence of xenophobic 'new Conservativism' in the evangelical movement IS frightening reminiscent of the Nazi "Deutsche Christen."

I admit, it's hard not to hear Scalia say that the principle of neutrality is "not neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of religion," and not be reminded of Hitler's policy statement that "the Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession." Or how about this this? "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter....As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." George Bush? No. Mel Gibson? No. Adolph Hitler? You got it! Here we see the clearest and most frightening parallel. It's not that our current leaders, like the Nazis, have 'found religion' (at least as a useful propaganda device), nor that both religions happen to be Christianity (that's to be expected in any Western nation). It's the particular form of Christianity that they've embraced, their shared vision of a muscular, warrior Christ, and their shared contempt for the weak, effeminate, non-judgmental, loving Christ of old.

We've got a long way to go yet, before America becomes Nazi Germany. The Coulters and the Limbaughs have done a lot to stir up hatred against the 'Liberals' (the modern right's equivalent of the Jews), but violent attacks against them are still few and far between. Malkin and her supporters have only just started to rehabilitate concentration (aka internment) camps. The Patriot Act has made some dents in civil rights, but there's still much to be done. The networks have started falling into line, but not enough for them to be ideal propaganda organs. Even with widespread disenfranchisement campaigns and quirky electronic vote counts, Bush barely won a second term.

My advice is to not worry about it. We're years away from anything approaching a Nazi takeover anyway. Let's just go back to sleep and mock anyone who brings up the subject as wild-eyed conspiricy nuts. Let's not get our panties in a bunch about the direction America seems to be moving in. Better to just ignore it until it's too late.

[Jake]

The gays will be The right's 'jews' - if they don't find some other boogieman to point at before the final pusch, the idea of a 'liberal' is too ephemeral, you can't (yet) lynch a 'liberal'. On the other hand a jew or a muslim or a gay have a definite group identity, which is displayed and can be viewed by those the right will manipulate to fully anchor it's power. A 'Liberal' doesn't have a uniform, nor do they have a unified behaviour that can be used as a litmus test to define a person as either a 'liberal' or 'one of us', the version of a 'liberal' as created by the right-wing media (or is that simply Media?) has little or no basis in reality, and thus cannot be used as a definitive 'other' in the same manner that Jews were used, as Homosexuals are likely going to be used.

'liberals' currently act simply as the smoke screen the Right points to to explain the rape and pillage of it's own support base.

Comparing them to the Nazis is unfair - on the Nazis, The Nazis at least looked after their own base, even if it came with the price of several million jews across europe, these people are more like the Feudal warlords of medieval europe, who kept their population in effective slavery while at the same time relying on their support to wage war against other warlords or the Jews to whom the warlords owed money.

[Scott]

"Religion has a preferred status by virtue of being non-taxed."

I thought that was more an issue of non-profits not being taxed, and churches being nonprofit organizations.

[Beth]

A 'Liberal' doesn't have a uniform, nor do they have a unified behaviour that can be used as a litmus test
But neither did many Jews in Weiman Germany. The German Jews were, in general, a highly assimilated bunch. Many still celebrated Jewish holidays at a synagogue or in their homes, but in the street most looked like any other German. And according to the Nazi definition of 'Jew,' some Jews even belonged to churches and worshipped Jesus Christ. Jewishness, to the Nazis, was not a matter of religion, but of ancestry. Also, remember that first they came for the communists.

a jew or a muslim or a gay has a definite group identity, which is displayed and can be viewed by those the right will manipulate to fully anchor it's power.
That's true, and of course the Nazis didn't invent anti-Semetism; it was already widespread in Germany. I imagine American fascists would be equally opportunistic, preaching the destruction of whatever group is most feared or hated already. Gays, Muslims, and Arabs seem like good candidates.

I was actually thinking of liberals as Jews more in the way they're being demonized and scapegoated. Jews, according to the Nazis, lacked moral values, corrupted decent people with their decadent art, and encouraged sexual perversion. They were Bolscheviks and internationalists, which made them traitors to their own country. They controlled the movies, the press, education, and politics. Everything that was wrong with Germany was the fault of the Jews, just as everything that's wrong with America today is the fault of the liberals.

Scott, I may be wrong, but I always thought non-taxing of churches was part of the general 'hands off' policy toward religion born of the idea separation of church and state, the same policy that exempts churches from fair hiring practices, and other restrictions. Whenever possible, government gives religion a wide berth. To hear the Christian Right tell it, 'separation of church and state' is a liberal plot to destroy religion, but in many ways it's been religion's greatest benefactor.

[Emma Goldman]

WRT the non-taxing thing, I think there are specific rights attached to being a religion--which is why L. Ron's minions tried for so many years to qualify as a religion, rather than as a non-profit--but I don't know what they are. And, hey, I could be wrong; any tax attorneys out there?

The other thing to keep in mind, though, is that Jews were a smaller percentage of Germany's population than "liberals" (or Kerry voters) are of the US population. Of course, if the liberals continue to divide and conquer themselves, then it's easier to isolate any given group and pick them off.