Pedantic Political Ponderings: Mormon Church

Showing posts with label Mormon Church. Show all posts

25 June 2012

25 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

14 May 2012

14 May 2012: Marriage News Watch

06 February 2012

Pattern: Claims of Threat to Religious Liberty

The various denominations of Christianity have a tradition of not getting along well. From outside appearances, a truce is in place. At least they have agreed to use common language and approach in their claims that President Obama is attacking their religious liberty. That there is no real attack on the practice of religion is immaterial. Here are a few examples beginning in November 2011, culminating with reactions to the announcement about two weeks ago that contraception must be covered by all health plans:

Evangelical Protestant: Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association complains that women's shelters in Colorado lost federal funding because they have mandatory bible study as part of the care for homeless and battered women. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service. He then complains that nurses were being forced to participate in abortions in New Jersey when they were required to care for women before and after abortions, not during the surgery. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health care practice with a church service.

Mormon and Roman Catholic: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich take the same positions. Both claim that Catholic Charities have been forced to curtail their adoption services because they won't serve gay couples. No, they just don't get federal funds if they are going to be bigots. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a social service and a church service.

Evangelical Protestant: Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel complains that the United States and Israel, all of Western Civilization, are threatened by marriage equality, gender equality, and family equality. Somehow if my partner and I can legally wed then Mr. Staver loses his religious liberty; while I gain my religious liberty. This is confusing equality and liberty with a zero sum game.

Roman Catholic: Bishop William Lori complains that the Church are being driven out of health care and adoption services. He is concerned that freedom of worship will replace freedom of religion. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service, then conflating a social service and a church service. One is free to celebrate one's religion, not to impose it on the rest of society.

Mormon: Hannah Smith complains that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

Roman Catholic: Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and Newt Gingrich complain that contraception is being imposed on religious groups via employer health plans. The claim of religious liberty is conflating a health service and a church service.

The pattern is clear. The cry that religious liberty is being attacked by President Obama is not likely to abate. That some might see that requiring that contraception be covered by health plans does not mean that individuals are required to use contraception is not going to slow or stop this allegation of President Obama being anti-religion.

What can or should President Obama do? My gut reaction is that he should use the bully pulpit and explain both the misunderstanding at hand and why partisan interests are turning this into something that is larger than it ought to be. Sadly, I don't think it would work.

I think the President is going to have to change this policy into something that is worse for the United States. Employees who want birth control will have to pay for it out of pocket, if they can afford it. That the cost of preventive measures is far less than the consequences of not taking those measures is not the issue. That no one would be forced to use birth control in violation of their religious compass is not the issue. This is entirely about how the President is perceived.

With that in mind, it is fair to consider additional perceptions. President Obama, despite periodic allegations, is clearly a Christian. That should have been obvious from his tumultuous exit from Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. At some point someone other than the President is going to need to point out that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints do not adhere to the Nicene Creed; they are not considered by most Christians to be Christian.

I don't like playing that kind of politics. Unless a presidential contender adheres to a religion that is a threat to the United States, the Church of American Dissolution or something dangerous outside of spiritual questions, I don't like using that issue. Still, those who want to make Mr. Obama a one-term president are already playing religious politics. To not recognize the politics for what it is could result, if one takes Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney at their words, in a shift toward theocracy.

My hope is that President Obama and his advisers both see what is happening and have ideas for getting out of this religious trap that they have sprung on themselves and avoid the low road that I mentioned.

28 February 2012: FollowUp 1.

11 March 2012: FollowUp 2.

13 October 2011

Repudiation: Robert Jeffress Mixing Church and State

Many political pundits have either lauded or criticized Mr. Jeffress for his speech at the Value Voters Summit, introducing Mr. Perry. The disapproval has even come from the right, as in this speech by Bill Bennett. Mr. Jeffress has not backed down as here on CNN, many times calling the Mormon faith a cult.

The definition of Christianity has evolved somewhat over the years. The most common yardstick for determining if a belief system is Christian is the Nicene Creed, dating back to around 325 C.E. By this definition, there are a number of modern religions, including Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, and some others that call themselves Christian, that are not Christian. From my outside vantage, as a Jew, it doesn't matter whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church) is considered Christian or not, but it is a point of major controversy, particularly in the evangelical community.

None of that crosses the line between Church and State. What might cross the line is a video of Mr. Jeffress on the pulpit of his church and accessible through the church website. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the IRS to consider the 501(c)3, tax exempt, status of the First Baptist Church based on that video.

CNN has a piece that appears to support Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Associated Baptist Press has a piece that appears to support Mr. Jeffress. The American Family Association is weighing in on the side of Mr. Jeffress.

The question really boils down to whether Mr. Jeffress and the First Baptist Church are in violation of the 501(c)3 statutes that prohibit political activity (pertinent section of the IRS code begins on page 7, in pdf format it is page 9 of IRS Guide 1828). Based on the guidelines in the right column of page 8, it is my opinion that Mr. Jeffress crossed that line and that his tax exempt status should be in question.

Please note that I am not against Freedom of Speech for Mr. Jeffress. I support his right to say anything he wants to say that does not lead to harm to others. But, Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not guarantee tax exempt status. The establishment clause does not guarantee tax exempt status. Actions, including speech, have consequences. Mr. Jeffress may want to have only Christians who believe what he believes as President of the United States and he should have the freedom to express such bigotry. However, my tax dollars should not be supporting his bigotry.

3 January 2012, FollowUp 1.

Various Direct Links