Every poll demonstrates that America is a very religious nation.  However, at the same time, Protestant evangelicalism, as religion, is only one of the many smorgasbord choices on the religious menu.  In this perspective, I want to review the role religion is playing in our culture and tie it to the matter of religious liberty.

• First of all, Christianity on our campuses:  Last fall, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill officially “derecognized” the Alpha Iota Omega Christian fraternity.  The University froze the fraternity’s account, denied it meeting space and cut off its access to student-fees funding (which AIO did not use anyway).  The reason for this “derecognition?”  The male Christian fraternity wanted its seven members to be Christian men.  The assistant director for student activities and organizations informed AIO that such a demand violated the University’s nondiscrimination policy by using religious affiliation as a criterion for membership.  Because the mission statement of AIO is “to train Christian leaders . . . by upholding the Bible’s true standard of righteousness,” AIO believes it cannot admit non-Christians.  Chancellor James Moeser stated that an officially recognized student group must “agree to abide by the university’s nondiscrimination policy by allowing membership and participation without regard to age, race, color, national origin, religion, disability, sex, or sexual orientation.”  The University of North Carolina is obviously violating the freedom of association clause of the First Amendment.  In response, the University says it is upholding the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  However, the Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rector (1995) ruled that university programs such as the one at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill—granting student fees and meeting space to a wide spectrum of student groups—does not violate government neutrality in the instance one of these groups is Christian.  The University of North Carolina is demanding the institutionalization of its diversity code, regardless of what the Supreme Court says about the issue.  It seems to me that this University is being exclusionary, not inclusive; and that is neither fair nor is it legal.  See Jon Sanders, Wall Street Journal (27 August 2004.)

• Second, the entire matter of religious liberty is under severe attack within the broader Western Civilization.  Gene Edward Veith reports on several developments:  (1) Sweden jailed a pastor for preaching that homosexuality is immoral and a violation of biblical teaching.  He was arrested, tried, and sentenced to 30 days in prison for violating Sweden’s law forbidding “hate speech” against homosexuals.  Canada has passed a similar law and gay activists want such a law in the US.  (2)  The California Supreme Court ruled in March that Catholic charities must include contraceptive coverage in its health-insurance plans for employees, even though birth control violates Roman Catholic teachings.  Twenty other states have similar laws.  Meanwhile, pro-abortion groups are working to require insurance plans to cover abortions.  NARAL and the ACLU are also trying to use the courts to force Catholic and other church-related hospitals to actually perform abortions, arguing that if they take federal funds they may not “impose their religious beliefs” on patients who want to abort their children.  (3)  Organized efforts are underway to punish churches that become involved in conservative politics by taking away their tax-exempt status.  In Kansas, for example, the pro-gay marriage Mainstream Coalition is sending teams to churches to discover pastors who are preaching on politics or political issues.  However, this is a double standard, for the Democratic Party regularly uses black churches for Democratic rallies, forums for Democratic presidential candidates and even for voter registration drives.  Apparently, only conservative churches are open to this kind of attack.  See Veith’s article in World (4 September 2004).

• Third, religion is increasingly shaping some aspects of the presidential campaign.  For example, Barack Obama, the new African-American star of the Democratic Party and the convention’s key-noter, stated in his address that “blue-state Americans worship an awesome God,” suggesting that the Party was deeply committed to religion and overcome by the power and majesty of God.  John Leo also points out that Obama announced that “‘there is not a black America and a white America and Latin America and Asian America.  There’s the United States of America.’  This was a not-very-credible repudiation of the politics of multiculturalism and separatism that Democrats have been forcing into the schools and into the law, often while expressing contempt for assimilation and the one-America ideal that Obama celebrated in his talk.”  Perhaps the most jarring theme at the Boston convention was the convention’s attempt to identify with religious voters.  Come to the Democratic convention, they postured, and sing “Amazing Grace.”  Listen again to Leo:  “. . . the secular elites who control the party have worked long and hard to marginalize religion in America and to banish it from the public square.”  In fact in a 2001 report published in the Public Interest, Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio concluded that the origins of the culture war pervading America can be traced to “the increased prominence within the Democratic Party [of secularists] and the Party’s resulting antagonism toward traditional values.”  It is difficult to not conclude that the Party is indeed promoting a hypocritical stance—pretending to be religious, when in fact it is not!  Voters must decide which is true—that the Democratic Party has embraced religion, or that it is cynically promoting it when that really is not true.  See Leo’s editorial in the US News and World Report (9 August 2004), p. 59.

• Finally, is the increased use of the term “fundamentalist” within our culture as a negative, pejorative term.  As Emir Fethi Caner, a converted Sunni Muslim,  has argued, “Inevitably, anyone who is radical in their faith—be they Christian, Muslim, Jew or another—are considered part and parcel of the same rabid species”—fundamentalist!  From the left we hear this charge:  George W. Bush is not only a Christian, but unabashedly dares to be a devoted Christian, one who reads his Bible on a regular basis, wholeheartedly believes every word he peruses and puts his faith into practice.  Leading this charge is Al Gore.  In a recent interview with the New Yorker, Gore assaulted Bush on his faith:  “It’s the American version of the same fundamentalist impulse that you see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim.”  However, despite Gore’s claim, in fact fundamentalist Christianity is the world’s greatest proponent of religious freedom.  Stroll the streets of Beijing, Riyadh or Islamabad, and you will not see visible signs of religions freedom.  In Pakistan you can be executed for speaking against Muhammad or the Koran.  Christianity is based on the teaching that conversion is an act of free will, not of coercion or government edict.  It is grossly unfair, historically untrue and intellectually dishonest to lump President Bush’s faith with the world’s other fundamentalist religions.  But he is doing it for political reasons, not because it is truth.  For shame, Mr. Gore!  See Caner’s article in the Omaha World Herald (20 September 2004), p. 7B.

Back to top

THE UN AND THE SUDAN

For those who champion multilateralism as a foreign policy, they had better consider how the UN has behaved in terms of Sudan.  For the US, its policy toward the horror of Darfur in the western Sudan has been, in the words of David Brooks, “exquisitely multilateral, meticulously consultative, collegially cooperative and ally-friendly. . . .”  So, the US went to the UN.  We did everything basically correct:  The president was involved, the secretary of state was bold and clear-headed, the UN ambassador was eloquent, and the Congress united.  Following the strictures of international law, we had the debates, while planes continued bombing villages.  The UN had a lengthy debate over whether the extermination of human beings in this instance was sufficiently concentrated to meet the technical definition of genocide.  The US had already concluded it was genocide, the European Union was not so sure, and the Arab League said definitely said no, all the while mass extermination of human beings went on.  Meanwhile the UN general secretary was making preparations to establish a commission, preliminary UN resolutions were passed, and the mass murderers were told to stop, which they of course did not do!  So, the US proposed a resolution threatening sanctions against the Sudanese government.  But the Russians, who sell military planes to Sudan, decided sanctions “would not be in the interests of humanity.”  The Chinese, whose oil companies have a significant presence in Sudan, threatened a veto.  Finally, about a week ago, the Security Council passed a resolution threatening to “consider” sanctions against Sudan. 

Listen to Brooks again:  “Every time there is an ongoing atrocity, we watch the world community go through the same series of stages:  (1) shock and concern (2) gathering resolve (3) fruitless negotiation (4) pathetic inaction (5) shame and humiliation (6) steadfast vows to never let this happen again.  Of course, all agree, [tongue in cheek] that this sad cycle is better that having some impromptu coalition of nations actually go in “unilaterally” and do something!!  That would lack legitimacy.  Strain alliances.  Menace international law!  Threaten the multinational ideal!”  This is the logic that brought 17 resolutions against Iraq and nothing was done.

Meanwhile, 1.2 million people of Darfur have been driven from their homes and they are dying at a rate of 10,000 per month.  Those who champion this wonderful multilateral approach to atrocity should be very proud of what it has accomplished in Sudan.

See Brooks’s article in the New York Times (25 September 2004), P. A17.

Back to top

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE 2004 ELECTION

You will not hear about it, nor will it be prominent in the upcoming debates, but probably one of the two or three major issues for this election is the federal judiciary.  The President of the United States appoints, with Senate approval, all Supreme Court justices, all Court of Appeals judges and all District Court judges.  As you know, the judicial branch today wields enormous power.  The next President could appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices, and a hundred or so lower court judges.

In terms of the Supreme Court, consider this:  the four oldest Supreme Court justices are:  John Paul Stevens (84), William Rehnquist (79), Sandra Day O’Connor (74) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (71).  Further, it has been over 10 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was filled, the longest gap in between appointments since 1823.  Retirement, illness and death could bring vacancies on the Court.  So, the next President will no doubt profoundly shape the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sexuality issues, marriage, life issues (abortion, euthanasia), stem cell research, education are all issues that the federal courts deal with, so it matters who is appointed!  It is imperative that all Americans, especially Christians, make this power to appoint federal judges a major consideration this election year.  The future of our country is very much at stake here.

Back to top