jaimethepooh
01-13-2004, 05:41 AM
By Paul Peter Jesep
Jesep Column Archive
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire, burn: caldron, bubble."
- Shakespeare (Chorus of witches in "Hamlet")
Faith-based initiatives, displaying the Ten Commandments and defining marriage with a constitutional amendment are among the religious issues likely to play a role in the 2004 presidential election. A concoction that mixes faith, politics, theology and patriotism is a dangerous brew.
Rev. Pat Robertson, who heads an influential media empire, said, "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk ... I’m hearing from the Lord; it’s going to be like a blowout election in 2004." Robertson contends that Bush can do no wrong in God’s eyes because he’s a man of prayer. Next time the reverend chats with God, I pray he asks about a solution for cancer, poverty or peace in the Middle East.
Several Democratic candidates, all hoping to be the party’s presidential nominee, are mentioning God. President George W. Bush has long publicly talked of his faith and its importance.
He and others have crafted public policy based on their individual relationship with the Almighty. There isn’t much the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) can do about it.
Liberals, moderates and conservatives should be uneasy regarding any government interest in faith, religion and spirituality. Amending the U.S. Constitution blurs the line between civil and religious marriage.
Amendment supporters contend that the sanctity of this institution is under threat. From what? A divorce rate at 50 percent or the staggering number of extramarital affairs? Should divorce laws be tightened and infidelity criminalized? What should be government’s response?
Former Republican presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer promised to gather "millions of signatures" this year to force Congress to protect public displays of religion. God called them to arms when a federal court required an Alabama state judge to remove the Ten Commandments from public view.
Should a Catholic state judge be allowed to display an icon of the Blessed Mother of Jesus? Baptists would be outraged.
James Towey, director of the White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said, "I haven’t run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear ... that public money must go to public purposes and can’t be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it."
Towey’s indication that the Bush administration would discriminate in awarding grants is troubling. Worse is his profound ignorance.
The Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans is an independent affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UAA) with 501(c)3 not-for-profit tax status. It is, according to its Web page, which is linked to the main Unitarian site, "committed to furthering Pagan and Earth-centered theology with the UUA." Pagans, like witches, are also patriotic, civic-minded taxpayers who work as lawyers, teachers and police officers.
UUA is not a pagan religion. Many members are Jews and Christians. The open-minded denomination, however, embraces "spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature," which can be paganism, humanism, or other paths that honor nature based spirituality.
The UUA, with roots in America that date to 1819, has included among its members James Killian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology president; Bernice Cronkhite, Radcliffe graduate dean; Elliot Richardson, U.S. attorney general to President Richard Nixon; and Adlai Stevenson, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Towey’s attitude could create a constitutional test case if the Universalist Pagans were denied a federal grant to do charitable work. Imagine the conniption Rev. Jerry Falwell would have if the Bush administration did provide such a grant? Should Washington be involved at all if such friction would be caused?
Faith, religion and spirituality will shape this year’s presidential election. What should be government’s role? One recent poll showed that Americans do care about a president’s faith.
That’s all well and good, but faith in what?
Jesep Column Archive
"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire, burn: caldron, bubble."
- Shakespeare (Chorus of witches in "Hamlet")
Faith-based initiatives, displaying the Ten Commandments and defining marriage with a constitutional amendment are among the religious issues likely to play a role in the 2004 presidential election. A concoction that mixes faith, politics, theology and patriotism is a dangerous brew.
Rev. Pat Robertson, who heads an influential media empire, said, "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk ... I’m hearing from the Lord; it’s going to be like a blowout election in 2004." Robertson contends that Bush can do no wrong in God’s eyes because he’s a man of prayer. Next time the reverend chats with God, I pray he asks about a solution for cancer, poverty or peace in the Middle East.
Several Democratic candidates, all hoping to be the party’s presidential nominee, are mentioning God. President George W. Bush has long publicly talked of his faith and its importance.
He and others have crafted public policy based on their individual relationship with the Almighty. There isn’t much the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) can do about it.
Liberals, moderates and conservatives should be uneasy regarding any government interest in faith, religion and spirituality. Amending the U.S. Constitution blurs the line between civil and religious marriage.
Amendment supporters contend that the sanctity of this institution is under threat. From what? A divorce rate at 50 percent or the staggering number of extramarital affairs? Should divorce laws be tightened and infidelity criminalized? What should be government’s response?
Former Republican presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer promised to gather "millions of signatures" this year to force Congress to protect public displays of religion. God called them to arms when a federal court required an Alabama state judge to remove the Ten Commandments from public view.
Should a Catholic state judge be allowed to display an icon of the Blessed Mother of Jesus? Baptists would be outraged.
James Towey, director of the White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said, "I haven’t run into a pagan faith-based group yet, much less a pagan group that cares for the poor! Once you make it clear ... that public money must go to public purposes and can’t be used to promote ideology, the fringe groups lose interest. Helping the poor is tough work, and only those with loving hearts seem drawn to it."
Towey’s indication that the Bush administration would discriminate in awarding grants is troubling. Worse is his profound ignorance.
The Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans is an independent affiliate of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations (UAA) with 501(c)3 not-for-profit tax status. It is, according to its Web page, which is linked to the main Unitarian site, "committed to furthering Pagan and Earth-centered theology with the UUA." Pagans, like witches, are also patriotic, civic-minded taxpayers who work as lawyers, teachers and police officers.
UUA is not a pagan religion. Many members are Jews and Christians. The open-minded denomination, however, embraces "spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature," which can be paganism, humanism, or other paths that honor nature based spirituality.
The UUA, with roots in America that date to 1819, has included among its members James Killian, Massachusetts Institute of Technology president; Bernice Cronkhite, Radcliffe graduate dean; Elliot Richardson, U.S. attorney general to President Richard Nixon; and Adlai Stevenson, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Towey’s attitude could create a constitutional test case if the Universalist Pagans were denied a federal grant to do charitable work. Imagine the conniption Rev. Jerry Falwell would have if the Bush administration did provide such a grant? Should Washington be involved at all if such friction would be caused?
Faith, religion and spirituality will shape this year’s presidential election. What should be government’s role? One recent poll showed that Americans do care about a president’s faith.
That’s all well and good, but faith in what?