The Proper Understanding of "Religious Freedom"

Being at the inaugural events this past weekend, including the the inaugural ceremony itself which is held on the south portico of the Virginia Capitol, it is hard not to feel the history of the ceremonies and, of course, the role of the Founding Fathers from Virginia.   Among those is Thomas Jefferson who designed the Capitol building, founded the University of Virginia, and authored the Declaration of Independence.  But Jefferson was equally proud of his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which in many ways lay the ground work for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  As evangelical Christians - the Christofascists - seek to exempt themselves from laws binding on the citizenry on the duplicitous claim that to do otherwise deprives them of "religious freedom," it is important to understand what Jefferson and his fellows understood religious freedom to be and that it is the exact opposite of what is now being put forth by Christofascists whom I suspect Jefferson would have loathed.  Indeed, the exemplify some of the evils of religion that Jefferson and the Founders decried.  A piece in Religion Dispatches by a legitimate historian (as opposed to faux historians favored by the "godly folk") reminds us of what religious freedom means and that it does not grant licences to discriminate.  Here are excerpts:

To listen to the Christian Right, which has been busy seeking religious exemptions from laws governing reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights, one might think that armies of secularists are swarming like locusts over the land, seeking to snuff out the light of religious freedom and ultimately, of faith itself.

Informed people on all sides also tend to agree that the taproot of religious freedom in the United States is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and shepherded through the Virginia legislature by James Madison in 1786. The following year, Madison served as the principal (but certainly not the only) author of the Constitution, and in 1789, as the principal author of the First Amendment.

Historian John Ragosta, author of Religious Freedom: Jefferson’s Legacy, America’s Creed (University of Virginia Press, 2013), has been writing about the origins of the U.S. approach to religious freedom, particularly the Virginia Statute, the circumstances that gave rise to it and what it means for understanding religion, law and politics in our time.

What exactly is the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and how did it come to be?

The Virginia Statute is probably the most robust and certainly the most poetic statement of religious freedom in our history.  . . . . it played a critical role in development of the First Amendment and in the way the states defined religious freedom. It was far better known in the nineteenth century when historians, students, newspaper editors and politicians regularly turned to the Statute to understand religious liberty.

Its history is equally important: After the American Revolution there was an effort to impose taxes to support all Christian religions; this was seen as an improvement over colonial laws which had favored specific Christian sects, e.g. Anglican or Congregational. If that effort had succeeded, we could say that America was somehow officially or legally a “Christian Nation.” Fortunately, James Madison and a broad coalition of evangelicals rose up to oppose state interference with religion, even support for religion, and instead managed to have Jefferson’s Statute enacted. 

Thomas Jefferson . . . wanted to be remembered as author of the Declaration of Independence, “Father of the University of Virginia,” and author of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Jefferson saw these three things as the great accomplishments of his life: political freedom, religious freedom, and educational freedom and opportunity. Of the three, he thought religious freedom was the foundation because without freedom to think and believe, you could not have the other two. A republic could not work if government and church officials (what Jefferson referred to as an alliance of “kings, nobles, and priests”) were trying to control what we think or prescribe what was the “best” religion or which people were the “best” citizens based upon their religious beliefs. If people were to make informed political choices themselves, they had to be free to think for themselves, especially about religion. For Jefferson and his supporters, religious freedom for all was central to our democracy.

Jefferson emphasized that the bill was meant to protect everyone, including as he later wrote, “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” This idea–that one’s religious identity should be neither an advantage nor a disadvantage under the law–seems to be as relevant today as it was then.

The Statute was intended to create a free market of ideas, including religious ideas. Religion would thrive based not on government decisions but on what people believed and chose to support–the “voluntary principle.” The result was an explosion in religious ideas and denominations, and religious leaders were held responsible to their congregants rather than the government.

At the same time, while belief is completely free from government regulation and government cannot directly regulate the free exercise of religion, government can pass “neutral” laws (not targeted at religion) which may happen to be inconsistent with a person’s beliefs.

The best modern example is laws against racial discrimination: While many people insisted that interracial dating or marriage violated their religion, the Supreme Court, in the 1983 case of Bob Jones University v. United States, rightly refused to grant an exemption to anti-discrimination laws based on religion.

This is exactly what is at issue in the claims for exemptions from laws dealing with LGBTQ rights. Government cannot tell a church that it must marry gay people (that would be a direct regulation of religion), but government can say that if you want to run a business (using public streets, public utilities, police and fire protection, etc.), you cannot discriminate against customers based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Of course, if people don’t like particular laws, they can be changed, but Jefferson was very clear that you can’t use religion or religious freedom to claim an exemption from an otherwise valid law.

During a crisis, President Jefferson was asked to make an official proclamation calling on people to pray for the country; he refused, saying that it would violate the Constitution. Even if there was no criminal penalty or fine for not praying, Jefferson said that he believed the proclamation would give the erroneous idea that “good” citizens would join in prayer. This was the “tyranny over the mind of man” that Jefferson fought against.

The Declaration of Independence includes very broad and general language about a “creator,” but it is telling that the only reference to God or religion in the Constitution is Article VI which mandates that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” This was not a mistake. These religious people decided that it would be better for the country, for both government and religion, to keep them separated.

Jefferson once suggested that perhaps the only thing that we should require of anyone to be tolerated in our society is their commitment to tolerate others.

Eighteenth century Presbyterians and Baptists would often note that if government could discriminate in favor of any religion, even all Christian religions, it also had the authority to attack a particular religion or all religions. They realized that complete separation of church and state was the best way to promote true religion.

The Right's Perversion of "Religious Freedom"

Nowadays, the Republican and Christofascist view of "religious freedom" equates to the Christofascists being allowed to force their beliefs on all of society or, if that fails, then being to use claimed religious belief to ignore laws that they don't like and to discriminate against other citizens at will.   Perhaps the most ominous example of this effort to stamp out the religious freedom of others is the farcically entitled "First Amendment Protection Act" which Congressional Republicans have promised to pass and which Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Fuhrer, has promised to sign.  If this act becomes law Christofascists - including corporations and businesses run by them and even medical providers - will granted license to discriminate against LGBT citizens and those who do not subscribe to Christofascists religious belief on abortion, contraception and cohabitation.  Frighteningly, most Americans are not even paying attention. I suspect many believe the act only attacks the LGBT community and, therefore are indifferent.  The act, however, goes much further and rather than protecting the First Amendment seeks to undermine and destroy it.  Here are highlights from a piece in Salon that looks at this insidious and dangerous agenda of the GOP and Christofascists: 

Forget the “War on Christmas.” Although far less known to the general public, Religious Freedom Day, which falls on Jan. 16 — coinciding this year with the Martin Luther King Jr. Day observance — has become one of America’s most-contested commemorative days. In most ways that’s a good thing, because of the need to shed light on what’s at stake: the very foundations of our most cherished freedoms.

Since 1992, Religious Freedom Day publicly celebrates the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and passed into law by his protégé, James Madison, in 1786. It disestablished the state power of the Anglican Church, and ensured religious freedom for all.

For Jefferson, and progressives today, the statute — which paved the way for the First Amendment — was a revolutionary break with theocratic rule, a fundamental precondition for all the freedoms we enjoy today, or are still struggling to secure.  Jefferson saw it as a crowning lifetime achievement, so important it is inscribed on his tombstone.

But for the Christian right, “religious freedom” means almost exactly the opposite: the “freedom” to impose their will on everyone else, precisely the sort of power over others that Jefferson fought so hard against.

The religious right has been organizing intensively around its Orwellian redefinition of the term since the beginning of the Obama era. It was laid out in detail in a report by Frederick Clarkson of Political Research Associates, entitled  “When Exemption is the Rule: The Religious Freedom Strategy of the Christian Right.” I summarized that report last year:

The title highlights a key aspect of the religious right’s long-term strategy, taking the time-honored principle of religious exemption, intended to protect the individual right of conscience, and expanding it recklessly to apply to whole institutions, even for-profit businesses — as seen in the Supreme Court’s 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, in a process designed to fragment the common public sphere and carve out vast segments of American life where civil rights, labor law and other core protections simply do not apply.

This strategy was kicked into high gear back in 2009 with the “Manhattan Declaration,” a widely endorsed manifesto linking “freedom of religion” specifically to “sanctity of life” and “dignity of marriage,” which religious progressives are just beginning to effectively counter-organize against.

As recently as the 1980s, Christian Right activists defended racial segregation by claiming that restrictions on their ability to discriminate violated their First Amendment right to religious freedom. …

Instead of African Americans being discriminated against by Bob Jones, the university argued it was the party being discriminated against in being prevented from executing its First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court disagreed.

“Six months after authoring the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson joined with several others in January 1777 to discuss what would later become the Virginia statute,” Clarkson said. “It was an urgent committee meeting because the success of the Revolution depended in part on the cobbling together of a coalition of stakeholders, and religious dissenters of Virginia —the Baptists, Presbyterians and Methodists — were necessary if there would be any chance of defeating what was at the time the greatest military power in the history of the world.”

If that sounds eerily familiar, there’s a good reason. As with the Democratic Party of today, the popular foundation of the American revolution came from a diverse array of socially subjugated out-groups. But they weren’t brought together through quid-pro-quo backroom deals, they were brought together with a liberationist vision.

“Attendance at an Anglican church on Sunday was compulsory,” Clarkson explained. “Failure to attend was one of the most prosecuted crimes in colonial Virginia in the years before the revolution.” Legally, members of local Anglican church vestries “were also empowered to report crimes like heresy and blasphemy to local grand juries. Violators were dealt with harshly,” But that’s not all. “Baptists were often victims of vigilante violence,” since practicing their faith made them publicly vulnerable.

“This was all in recent memory of such abuses that helped to create the political moment that made Virginia the first government in the history of the world to self-impose complete religious freedom and equality. This actually effectively disestablished the Anglican church as the state church of Virginia, curtailing its extraordinary powers and privileges. It also decreed that citizens were  free to believe as they will, and that this — and this is the key phrase in the legislation — that ‘this shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.’ Put another way, one’s religious identity was irrelevant to one’s standing as a citizen.”

The same political situation Jefferson dealt with in Virginia was replicated throughout colonial America, and persisted through the formation of the United States, bringing other leaders to embrace a similar outlook as well. Case in point: George Washington.

In part, Washington wrote: The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.

The strongest opposition to it came from those who opposed the Revolution, the Anglican establishment and their supporters, whose power and influence were greatly diminished as the new nation formed.

Though that opposition persists to this very day, it has never regained anything like the power it had previously had, prior to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. This is the true history of religious freedom in America. It’s not a battle between the godly and the heathen, but between the tolerant and the intolerant, the inclusive and exclusive, the forward-looking and the backward-looking. But it takes an accurate look backward to see the true way forward. 

Faith Key for Judge Who Invalidated Virginia Same Sex Marriage Ban

One of the problems facing America today is the growing insistence on the part of Christofacists that (i) they are above the laws that govern everyone else and (ii) that those who do not conform to their hate and fear based religious beliefs should be deprived of civil rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  These beliefs and action are against founding principles of this nation that go back to Founders such as Jefferson who stated in his draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that civil rights are not dependent on religious belief:

. . . . that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore  he proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right . . . .

. . . no man shall . . . suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. 

Today's Christofascists and self-anointed protectors of traditional marriage hold the foregoing principles in nothing less than contempt.  Fortunately,  U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen DOES honor and respect these founding principles and was able to put her personal religious beliefs aside when rendering her ruling in Bostic v. Rainey which declared Virginia's same sex marriage ban to be unconstitutional.  Here are highlights from the Richmond Times Dispatch on Wright Allen's recognition of the concept of separation of church and state:

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen wears her Christian faith proudly, at least to the extent that federal judges can.

At her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee three years ago, Wright Allen began by thanking God for her very existence. She spoke confidently about how her late father and an attorney friend were “in heaven” watching the proceeding. And she recognized her pastor, from a religiously conservative church in Norfolk, who had driven to Washington for the hearing, pointing him out to the senators.

Wright Allen struck down Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage, saying the prohibition violates federal constitutional provisions on equal protection and due process of law. She said the definition of marriage that’s been in place in Virginia since colonial times — one man and one woman — must change.

There’s little dispute that laws on marriage were “rooted in the principles embodied by men of Christian faith,” Wright Allen wrote. Still, she added, marriage has “evolved into a civil and secular institution,” and marriage laws are “an exercise in governmental power” that warrant federal protections.

Walter D. Kelley Jr., a former Norfolk-based federal district judge and now a partner at the Jones Day law firm in Washington, said Wright Allen is a friend. They met more than 10 years ago at First Presbyterian Church in the Ghent section of Norfolk, where they both attended, and have kept in touch.

“She’s a very devoted Christian,” Kelley said. “She and her family are very active participants at the church. It’s more than just a Sunday morning thing. The church is an integral part of their life all week long.”But though “church doctrine would not smile on gay marriage,” Kelley said, “church doctrine doesn’t have anything to do with her job.”

[W]hatever her personal preference might be or might not be is sort of irrelevant,” Kelley said. “The oath that you swear to uphold as a judge is to uphold the law, not to uphold your personal beliefs. She would never flinch for a moment in applying that standard.”

“Unanimously, prosecutors and defenders who have worked with her on either side have attested to her talent, dedication and above all her exceptional character,” then-Sen. Jim Webb told the Judiciary Committee at the time. After he met her, Webb told his colleagues, “It was clear to me that she possesses the judicial temperament and dedication to make an excellent judge.”

There is more to the article that deserves a read.  The bottom line is that Wright Allen's critics have contempt for the separation of church and state and want their personal religious views imposed on all citizens.  They are precisely the kind of hypocrites and tyrants that Thomas Jefferson warned about and condemned.

Mark Herring Pulls Ahead of Cuccinelli Clone Mark Obenshain

Click image to enlarge

After canvassing votes in precincts in Richmond and elsewhere, Democrat candidate Attorney General Candidate, Mark Herring, has retaken the lead from Ken Cuccinelli clone and far right extremist Mark Obenshain.  Now, the  Virginia State Board of Elections website has been updated, and Democrat Mark Herring now leads by 117 votes over Republican Mark Obenshain. :)  

The closeness of the vote underscores the reality that EVERY vote does make a difference.  To me, it is important that the entire hand picked slate of the extremists and hate merchants at The Family Foundation go down in defeat.   Here's a sampling of the batshitery coming out of The Family Foundation now that their attempt to take over Virginia's top statewide government positions has failed (Note: gays, as always, are a favorite target of scorn for these foul modern day Pharisees):

Regardless of the reasons for Tuesday’s results, we have a new political climate in Richmond that in many ways will be far more hostile to our faith and principles than anything we’ve seen before. Make no mistake: the abortion industry that spent well over $1 million to elect Terry McAuliffe and the homosexual rights lobby that spent thousands expect payback – and they expect it quickly. While there will be claims that “social issues” will take a back seat, do not be deceived. The first actions of the Governor-elect will not have anything to do with jobs or the economy, but they will have everything to do with social issues – beginning with executive orders that grant special status to people based on their sexual behavior. The appointments he will make to his administration will not be to help your job situation; they will be to reward those who helped get him into office.

The new political climate will mean that the Founding Fathers' goal of a secular government and a clear separation of church and state.   Ms. Cobb and her fellow hate merchants might do well to look in the mirror as they read the following - Thomas Jefferson's preamble to Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom (emphasis mine):

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

The agenda of The Family Foundation is the antithesis of what Jefferson and his fellow Founders sought to uphold. With the defeat of Ken Cuccinelli, "Bishop" Jackson, and seemingly Mark Obenshain, perhaps Jefferson's ideals can begin to again be realized in Virginia.

Albert Mohler's Spittle Flecked Response to Call for SBC Military Chaplains Resign

As noted earlier, the Southern Baptist Convention has adopted rules for SBC military chaplains to refuse to fraternize or cooperate with chaplains from other denominations which do not demonize and seek to make gay service members inferior in their rights and recognition.  This divisive approach prompted a Presbyterian official to suggest that if the SBC chaplains could not or would not follow military rules including those recognizing gay service members and denominations recognizing gay marriage, they should resign from the military.  After all, military chaplains are paid not by their denominations but by rather American taxpayers.  This suggestion caused SBC mullah Albert Mohler to erupt in a spittle flecked shit storm.  Like most Christofascists, Mohler believes his religious beliefs trump the civil laws and the U.S. Constitution.  Mohler fumed in part as follows:

Can chaplains committed to historic biblical Christianity serve in the United States military? That question, though inconceivable to our nation’s founders, is now front and center.

The irony, as blogger friend Bob Felton points out, is that the Founding Fathers did not uniformly support having military chaplains in the first place.   But, it is par for the course that religious extremists like Mohler ignore actual history and prefer to spread the myth that the Founding Fathers were pro-religion and were all too happy to allow it to subsume the civil laws.  Such was not the case and James Madison (the principal author of the U. S. Constitution) was very wary of religion and allowing preachers to gain a role in civil government not to mention the military.  Here are highlights from his writings in 1817:

The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U. S.

[T]here is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded . . .

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles
If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expence. 

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right pinciple, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view . . .

As I have argued before, the military chaplain corps needs to be defunded and, if denominations desire to provided chaplains, allow them to foot the entire bill.  And they should do so off site from military bases and establishments.  As for Mohler, the best rule of thumb is to assume that if his lips are moving, he's likely lying.

Ken Cuccinelli Seeks to Amend Virginia Constitution To Allow Taxpayer Funding of Religious Schools

I have said for a long time that GOP gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is a religious extremists who if given his way would destroy the separation of church and state handed down from the Founding Fathers.  Now, Cuccinelli is proposing that the Virginia Constitution be amended to allow taxpayer funding of religious schools thereby diverting funding from the Commonwealth's public schools.  This type of proposal was anathema to the Founding Fathers who wanted to established religion and no mandatory public support of of sectarian institutions.  In contrast, what Cuccinelli is proposes gives the theocrats at The Family Foundation a veritable wet dream.  Here are highlights from Think Progress:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R), his party’s nominee in this November’s gubernatorial election, unveiled a 12-point education plan Tuesday. Among his proposals: Virginia should amend its constitution to allow public funding for religious education.

Cuccinelli, who has blasted the Catholic Church for creating a “culture of dependency on government, not God,” proposed that Virginia should divert taxpayer funds from public education to parochial school vouchers. He claimed that the separation of church and state provisions in Article IV, Section 16 of Virginia’s constitution were merely anti-Catholic bigotry:

Virginia has provisions in its constitution that explicitly bar government aid to “sectarian” schools or institutions, including the so-called Blaine Amendment. The Blaine Amendment was passed as a result of anti-Catholic bigotry in American politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which made clear that the federal Constitution permits aid through school choice programs, Virginia’s Blaine Amendment restricts the ability to enact broad-based school choice programs. A state constitutional amendment is needed that is narrowly drafted to allow for school choice programs that do not restrict parents’ choices about what is best for each of their children.

  [P]ublic finding to any sectarian institutions . . . [is] explicitly prohibited by Virginia’s constitution.

While the nation and Virginia were founded on the belief that religions should be free from government interference in teaching their beliefs, it has also been the longstanding view that the government should not pay for religions to do so.

Cuccinelli seemingly ignores his [Thomas Jefferson's] 1779 Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. In that law, passed by the Virginia General Assembly in 1786, Jefferson wrote, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical,” and that “even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness.”

Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is still part of the Code of Virginia even though the GOP controlled General Assembly has repeatedly ignored its principles and enacted blatantly religious based laws that marginalize gays and others who do not conform to Christofascist religious beliefs.  Here are more quotes from the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which is one of three things Jefferson wanted to be remembered for (the other two are founding the University of Virginia and authoring the Declaration of Independence):

Almighty God hath created the mind free,and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from theplan of the Holy author of our religion, . .

the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time . . .

to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own . . . .

What Jefferson so eloquently condemned is precisely what Cuccinelli and the extremists at The Family Foundation seek to inflict on all Virginians.  Cuccinelli MUST be defeated in November.  Otherwise, the days of religious freedom for all in Virginia is numbered.  

Virginia's Regularly Ignored Statute for Religious Freedom

Given yesterday's anti-gay adoption actions in Richmond, the ongoing lies of faux historian David Barton referenced in a recent post, and the constant enshrinement of religious bigotry in the nation's laws - DOMA being a prime example - from time to time it worth re-reading Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom written by Thomas Jefferson which remains part of the Code of Virginia even though the members of the Republican Party of Virginia - and some Democrats on the Social Services Board - ignore it regularly. Jefferson's eloquent words underscore how Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, Bob Marshall and others of similar ilk have betrayed Virginia's and the nation's founding principle of religious freedom for ALL citizens. Here are Jefferson's words (emphasis supplied is mine):
*
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
*
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,
*
that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:
*
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

The Faith of the Founding Fathers

The Christianists love to blather ad nausea about America having been founded as a "Christian nation." The only problem, of course, is that the claim is not true and as we have seen before such as in the preamble of Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom - which is still a part of the Code of Virginia but which consistently ignored by Christianists and Republicans, including my former classmate, George Allen, who talks of Jeffersonian principles even as he prostitutes himself to the religious right - Jefferson had nothing but contempt for the intermixing of religion and the dispensing of civil legal rights. A post at Right Wing Watch adds to the list of inconvenient facts that show the lie of Christianists like David Barton who try to twist history to fit their theocratic agenda. Here are some post highlights:
*
John Adams, on the other hand, is held up as a paragon of what it means to be a true Christian and a statesmen. But, for some reason, the Religious Right never bothers to mention that, like Thomas Jefferson, Adams did not believe that Jesus was God or that he died for the sins of mankind and actually mocked the idea:
*
[Adams] could not accept the historic Christian belief that Jesus Christ was God or that his death atoned for the sins of the world: "An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent omnipresent Author of this stupendous Universe suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea." Adams thought the notion of "a mere creature, or finite Being," making "Satisfaction to the infinite justice for the sins of the world" was a "convenient Cover for absurdity." These doctrines were not part of the pure and undefiled teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels, but were rather created by the leaders of the early Christian church who "misunderstood" Jesus' message and thus presented it in "very paradoxical Shapes."
*
There is one major problem with Potts's story of Washington praying at Valley Forge - it probably did not happen. While it is likely that Washington prayed while he was with the army at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-1778, it is unlikely that the story reported by Potts, memorialized in paintings and read to millions of schoolchildren, is anything more than legend. It was first told in the seventeenth edition (1816) of Mason Lock Weem's Life of Washington. Weems claimed to have heard it directly from Potts, his "good old FRIEND." Potts may have owned the house where Washington stayed at Valley Forge, but his aunt Deborah Potts Hewes was living there alone at the time. Indeed, Potts was probably not even residing in Valley Forge during the encampment. And he was definitely not married. It would be another twenty-five years before he wed Sarah, making a conversation with her in the wake of the supposed Washington prayer impossible. Another version of the story, which appeared in the diary of Reverend Nathaniel Randolph Snowden, claims that it was John Potts, Issac's brother, who heard Washington praying. These discrepancies, coupled with the fact that Weems was known for writing stories about Washington based upon scanty evidence, have led historians to discredit it.
*

The surest defense to revisionist history is an accurate knowledge of history - something that is given an abysmally low priority in our public schools and which plays directly into the hands of those who would subvert the U. S. Constitution such as Barton.

A UVA Law Grad's Reaction to Virginia's Regression

It will be interesting to see whether or not the leaders of Virginia's colleges and universities have the spine to tell Ken Cuccinelli to put his directive letter where the sun doesn't shine. For some, deleting the non-discrimination policy as demanded by religious lunatic Cuccinelli will have a potentially dire impact in terms of recruitment, not to mention potential alumni contributions. Indeed, if the University of Virginia knuckles under I will join a fellow UVA Law alumni and cease all contributions to the university. Let Cuccinelli sue the University and bring a fire storm down upon himself. The public colleges and universities need to make it clear that they will protect the U.S. Constitutional rights of gay citizens even if Cuccinelli will not. Cucinnelli clearly forgets that the U.S. Constitution trumps the Virginia General Assembly AND the Virginia Constitution - It also trumps Cuccinelli's religious based bigotry -as does the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave (pictured at right). Here's the comment left on the Daily Progress by a fellow UVA alumni:
*
The pettiness and spitefulness of Virginia’s AG is astounding. And the spinelessness of UVa officials in their initial response to this letter unfortunately is all too predictable. I have already been discouraged from contributing more to my alma mater than I’d otherwise give, as a result of the antediluvian policies recently propounded by the leaders of my former Commonwealth, but the AG’s churlishness, on top of the governor’s recent announcement, takes the cake. The University and the Law School should expect no more contributions from me (so sue me, UVa, for reneging on my pledge) unless and until the University acquires the guts to challenge these bigots and their policies in Richmond and in the public eye.

*

It is also noteworthy that Cuccinelli is utterly ignoring Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom that was drafted by Thomas Jefferson. It's still the law and the preamble drafted by Jefferson well describes the evils of individuals like Cuccinelli. Here are highlights:
*
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; . . .
*
the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation,
*
Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
*
if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
*
Can Cuccinelli be impeached for violating the state's statutes? U.S. Constitutional protections afforded citizens? It's an interesting question that, if we are lucky, Mr. Cuccinelli will need to face some time soon.

Church - State Separation Is A Lie in America

Earlier in the week I bookmarked a post by Jeremy Hooper at Good As You that looked at the myth of freedom of religion in New York State after the defeat of the marriage equality bill in the new York State Senate. As I said before, anti-gay legislation in the final analysis comes down to one thing: discrimination based on religion. Since GLBT Americans do not conform to the beliefs of more reactionary forms of Christianity, we are deprived of equal rights and indeed, until 2005 in the Lawrence v. Texas were still criminalized in 13 states. Jeremy quotes the mindset behind the no vote via one of the Christo-fascists who lobbied to sway the gutless senators who have basic contempt for the true meaning of freedom of religion:

*
Rev. Duane Motley, Senior Lobbyist for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, made the following comments: . . . The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy. New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.” McGuire added, “The authentic marriage movement in New York is a movement based on love and justice. Our existing marriage laws are just. They do not violate the Constitution, nor do they violate the civil rights of same-sex partners. All people are created equal, but not all choices are equal and not all relationships are marriages. We are pleased that today a majority of the senators recognized and upheld the true purpose of marriage.” . . . According to the Word of God, marriage is and always will be the union of a man and a woman. Since God created marriage, only He has the authority to change it.”
*

There you have it: the Christianist RELIGIOUS view must be the law - even the CIVIL laws. It's a mindset not unlike the Islamic obsession with imposing Sharia law. The irony, of course, is that the Founding Fathers knew well the dangers posed by having one set of religious beliefs enforced via the civil laws in the form of the Anglican Church that was the official church in many colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. Here in Virginia one of the most revered figures in Virginia history, Thomas Jefferson was most emphatic on the hypocrisy and evil of religious discrimination in doling out civil liberties - something the Virginia Legislature has forgotten as it has deprived GLBT Virginians of what Jefferson called natural rights of all citizens. I have posted it before, but Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious freedom says it all. Here again are some highlights:

*
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
*
[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, . . . and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
*
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
*
. . .[T]he rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
*

By their "no" votes, 38 New York senators demonstrated absolute contempt for ideals of Thomas Jefferson's - probably one of the greatest minds in the nation's history. Oh yes, Christianist will try to argue that Jefferson was not in favor of sodomy. Unlike the narrow minded Christiansts and like bigots, Jefferson soaked up knowledge and embraced new discoveries and science. One need only visit Monticello to see this - something I have done probably more than 50 times over the years (UVA students once got in for free with their student ID card). Unlike the present day merchants of intolerance, I find it inconceivable that Jefferson would shun new medical and mental health knowledge on sexual orientation. I suspect that had he been voting in the New York Senate he would have cast a resounding "Yes" vote.

*

Until the day arrives when GLBT Americans have full civil equality in every way, America's claim that its citizen enjoy freedom of religion will continue to be a cancerous lie.

Bob McDonnell: "I'm not apologizing"

In the video set forth below GOP candidate Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell had the opportunity to confirm that he no longer adheres to the far right batshittery set forth in his thesis written while he was a 34 year old student at crackpot Christianist Pat Robertson's CBN University (n/k/a Regent University) yet McDonnell chose to disclaim none of it. Of course, knowing Bob McDonnell and his puppeteers at The Family Foundation - Daddy Dobson's Virginia arm of the gay hating Focus on the Family - and at Regent University, McDonnell will never disavow his thesis statements: to do so would send the wingnuts in Virginia into convulsions and also cause them to stop contributing money and grass roots labor to his campaign. On top of that, I believe that McDonnell truly believes everything he wrote in his thesis. He simply does not get the fact that as a public official, be it as Governor or as a member of the Virginia General Assembly, he does NOT get to force his religious beliefs on all other citizens.

*

Thomas Jefferson who drafted the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom - which is STILL Part of the Code of Virginia - must be rolling over in his grave at the prospect of McDonnell and his allies in the Christian Taliban possibly gaining control of the Governor's mansion. McDonnell and his Christianist allies are exactly the type of people Jefferson condemned so eloquently:

*

[T]he impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. . .

*

I cannot state it any better than Jefferson. Taliban Bob needs to look in the mirror and understand that Jefferson was writing about people like McDonnell and his masters in the Christian Taliban.

Bob McDonnell, GOD and the GOP

I am sure much to the dismay of Taliban Bob, his masters thesis written at Pat Robertson's wingnut university - now known a Regent University - continues to get play in the press and thus helps to keep attention trained on his extreme Christianist views that government should enforce a particular religious belief system. Indeed, the thesis shows an utter contempt for the religious freedoms of others of differing faiths or even no faith. Like so much involving the Christianists, their beliefs are to trump those of everyone else. Unfortunately, with all the focus on McDonnell, the MSM has failed to focus on Ken Cuccinelli whose Christo-fascist views almost make McDonnell's thesis look relatively moderate. As I have commented before, this year's GOP slate is probably the most extreme in many, many years and must be defeated if Virginia is not to back slide into reactionary territory more frequently seen in Alabama or Mississippi. Here are highlights from another Washington Post column:

*

Politicians have a habit of saying what their audience wants to hear. Twenty years ago, Bob McDonnell's audience was Pat Robertson's extremely conservative evangelical university, and the three faculty members who were judging his master's thesis. Today his audience is the more politically and theologically diverse voting population of Virginia who are judging his Republican candidacy for governor.

*

But regardless of whether you agree with McDonnell, then or now, his 93-page thesis for Regent University -- whose motto is "Christian Leadership to Change the World" -- is worth reading. McDonnell's thesis provides one of the clearest expressions I've found of the conservative evangelical mindset -- especially its view of the appropriate God-ordained roles of church, government and family in society, and its reliance on the Republican Party "to restore the proper balance of church, family and state authority."

*

McDonnell goes on to explain in great legislative detail "how to attain the ideal" by implementing and following The Republican Vision for Family Policy. It's clear McDonnell doesn't think much of the Democratic vision for family policy.

*

It is also clear that McDonnell holds contempt for those who would differ with him be they gays, working women, those who want equal pay for women, or those who believe in Thomas Jefferson's concept of religious freedom. Bob McDonnell would do well to re-read the preamble of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom written by Jefferson. McDonnell's views are directly opposed to those of Jefferson.