Should atheists fight for religion in government?

[cbayer]

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/should_atheists_fight_for_religion_in_government_partner/

TUESDAY, APR 16, 2013 11:50 AM PDT
Should atheists fight for religion in government?
Nonbelievers take note: Religious life tends to decline following breakdowns in the separation of church and state

BY SHANNY LUFT


(Credit: TalyaPhoto via Shutterstock)

This article originally appeared on Religion Dispatches.

Debates over separation of church and state are a staple of the culture wars, and skirmishes arise and vanish like radar blips. One recent squabble came and went with such haste, you might have missed it if you were offline for a few days.

The debate over the “Defense of Religion Act” in North Carolina played out with the predictability of a sitcom. I offer this modest proposal, then, to remind both sides that if this is a war, then they have fought to a stalemate, and it is time for some new tactics, by which I mean: the history of religion in America demonstrates that the winner of the culture war will be the side that does the opposite of everything they are doing now.

Consider the tussle in North Carolina. Last month, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Board of Commissioners in Rowan County, North Carolina who have a habit of opening every session with a Christian prayer. An official meeting from December 2007, for example, began:

“As we get ready to celebrate the Christmas season, we’d like to thank you for the Virgin Birth, we’d like to thank you for the Cross at Calvary, and we’d like to thank you for the resurrection. Because we do believe that there is only one way to salvation, and that is Jesus Christ. I ask all these things in the name of Jesus. Amen.”

In response to the ACLU lawsuit, a dozen North Carolina lawmakers co-sponsored a resolution that, they claimed, was intended to express support for the besieged county commissioners. Yet the resolution went much further than a statement of support, declaring that “The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the United States of America does not prohibit states… from making laws respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, the ACLU was arguing on first amendment grounds that Rowan County officials were favoring Christianity. In response, these North Carolina lawmakers proclaimed that the first amendment did not apply to North Carolina.

more at link

[supernova]

1. No. The wall between church and state

needs to remain intact. And the ACLU needs to keep at it.

I know it's become fashionable in certain liberal circles to start calling for churches who wade into politics to start paying taxes. But the truth is, if they do, if that really comes to pass, that will LEGITIMIZE church participation in the political process. Right now, they don't have a leg to stand on legally when they do endorse candidates or policies from the pulpit. But you give them skin in the game so to speak by paying taxes, then they become the BIGGEST voices in the community. Forget about one person/one vote and all being treated equally. The church's vote then becomes, often, the biggest vote/voice in the community. And what they want is what the voting/election results will show.

That simply won't do. I won't live in such a place. Ever.

Most of these bills are coming out of the ALEC factory. We really must find an effective strategy for dealing with ALEC at a national level. But so far, I don' t see anyone in the liberal legal tradition willing to take them on. Sigh.

[cbayer]

2. The piece is rather tongue in cheek and argues for stricter separation.

It's mainly about the tactics used to promote that goal.

I agree with you about the taxation issue. The problem appears to lie with the IRS, who have not pursued churches that have crossed the boundary into candidate advocacy.

I also agree that a strategy for dealing with ALEC is critical. They have moved solidly into local/state elections and I don't see much countering them.

[pinto]

3. I'll third the need to counter ALEC. They are focused on local / regional legislation, well funded,

adept at manipulating cultural issues into local politics.

Why religious organizations who blatantly make political advocacy part and parcel of religious services aren't called to task is a head scratcher for me. Maybe the IRS lacks the resources, wants to avoid the separation issue or has bigger fish to fry, financially.

In the meantime, it seems the courts are the best recourse.

[MADem]

6. I know folks who work for IRS who have gotten their

furlough schedules as a consequence of the sequester, so perhaps they are, indeed, lacking in resources to work this issue...

[freshwest]

5. No. And the government needs to stop funding social services to tax free organizations who are hold

themselves (for religious or any other reason) unaccountable to how those dollars will be spent.

As long as non-government run programs take tax dollars and discriminate against citizens who pay taxes in disbursing them, it's public financing of religion or privatization groups.

As far as churches or others being said to 'make tax dollars go further' because of volunteers, prisoners or those forced to do community service, I'm against cheap labor.

Yes, that may sound harsh, but I don't see it as equality in the laws I pay to have administered, and a lowering of standards.

Just sayin'