In his speech at the Republican National Convention, Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan brought out the old trope about depending on churches and other faith charities to take care of the needy so he and Romney can gut the social safety net like food stamps and medicare. His idea, the common conservative wet dream, would actually be very bad for churches and other faith based charities who are already strained by the result of the economic meltdown of 2008 and the slow recovery.
On August 15th a man with a gun walked into the building where the conservative hate group Family Research Council (FRC) is headquartered and shot a security guard before being subdued. It was a tragic event that was allegedly politically motivated because allegedly the shooter, who supports LGBT rights, told the victim that he didn’t like his politics and the FRC has been working hard to limit LGBT rights. The shooting was condemned by various LGBT groups as well as supporters for religious freedom. But FRC decided to use the shooting to fundraise for the group claiming it was proof of a “war on religion”. The truth is the Family Research Council earns its hate group status.
As Lauren Youngblood of the Secular Coalition for America notes, the FRC released a slanted report, this week, on religious hostility in the country and claimed there have been more than 600 cases of religious hostility toward Christians:
Both Mitt Romney and President Obama gave lengthy interviews to the National Cathedral’s magazine, “Cathedral Age”. I believe that we live in a secular republic where the government ought to be religiously neutral. There is no religious test to hold office but this interview did gives us a case study in Christian privilege that some like Mitt Romney believe they deserve. While he tore into the wall between church and state, in another interview he tried to use his religion as an excuse not to reveal his tax returns.
I noticed an Associated Press (AP) story published Monday evening with a very misleading headline. It read “Amish in Ohio Hair-Cutting Case Seek to Avoid Oath”. Why is it misleading? Those of us who struggle to support separation of church and state know why it is misleading. The AP headline was basically biased toward people who don’t want to swear an oath in court.
The story was about the current criminal case in Ohio involving a dissenting sect of Amish people who had cut the hair and beards of other Amish people who they thought were observing their faith incorrectly. The story leads with:
It was reported in the Washington (DC) Blade that through a White House spokesperson, President Obama said he opposes the ban on LGBT participation in the Boy Scouts of America. The ban was recently affirmed after a secret two year evaluation. The President made a point to say he would not resign as Honorary President of the BSA. Does staying as the honorary president undercut his opposition to the ban?
The Catholic church and other religious conservatives are suing the government to invalidate the new health care regulation that forces them to provide insurance coverage for birth control for non-clergy workers. This follows the recent history of legal religious accommodation like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But these attempts to knock down the wall of separation of church and state leads down a road I don’t think most people have thought about in trying to roll back religious neutrality.
