Community Religious Leaders Launch New Column in Colorado Springs Independent

“In Good Faith” addresses questions about beliefs, family and culture

Starting in May, leaders within the faith community of Colorado Springs will be contributing to a new column in the Colorado Springs Independent.

The bi-monthly advice column, “In Good Faith,” will debut on May 1st and will feature a candid but civil exchange between the Rev. Ahriana Platten, minister at Unity in the Rockies and Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family. The Rev. Benjamin Broadbent, senior minister at First Congregational Church, will engage Daly later in the month. Continue reading

Book Review: The “Secular State” – picking words and picking battles

by Ken Burrows

Reflections on How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom by Jacques Berlinerblau

cross flag“Every new and successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance. Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” — James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, 1822

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” — John F. Kennedy, speech in Houston, 1960

“The ‘wall of separation between church and state’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.” — Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, dissenting in Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985

“Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion.” — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, interviewed in Hamodia magazine, 2009

As the quotes above suggest, something has happened over the last couple of centuries, and even in the last half-century, to the concept of church-state separation as seen by America’s leading voices. How did this come about and what might it mean for the future? If it’s a trend, is it inexorable?

This past year Jacques Berlinerblau attempted to answer such questions in his book How to Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom. One of its main theses is that secularism—defined by him as a philosophy wherein the state does not establish a religion or embrace an official preference for any—is in peril, and this peril is owed to extremism on both the right and the left, to both the fundamentally religious and the aggressively irreligious. In fact, in what may sound contradictory, he contends it is religious moderates that offer one of the best hopes of saving the secular state from demise.

Continue reading

2013 CRFI a Success

On Saturday, April 6, 2013, Citizens Project proudly presented the fourth annual Citizens’ Religious Freedom Institute, a one day seminar on how the First Amendment to the US Constitution protects religious freedom in public schools. More than 40 teachers, students, parents, administrators, staff, and school board members joined us for a day of learning.

Photos courtesy of Glenn:  Continue reading

The church vs. contraception: A matter of conscience . . . or control?

by Ken Burrows

For many months now, in the wake of the Affordable Care Act’s requirement for employers’ insurance policies to cover contraceptive drugs and services, the Catholic Church has taken vehement exception to this requirement. Churches themselves are exempt from the mandate, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) insists the requirement forces certain Catholic-affiliated entities (e.g., hospitals, universities, social service agencies) to violate their conscience, apparently on the assumption such entities share (or should share) the same religious objection as the church to contraception.

contraception-mandateA February 2012 pastoral letter from Cardinal Timothy Dolan on the topic spoke of concern for “the reverence for conscience.” The following month another letter from Cardinal Dolan referred to the right “of any faith to define its own teaching” and the right of every person of faith to not be forced to “violate their conscience.” The April Statement on Religious Liberty issued by the USCCB asserted that religious freedom goes beyond freedom to worship and must also guarantee “respect for freedom of conscience.” The day after the presidential election, Cardinal Dolan wrote a letter to President Obama congratulating him on his victory while also reminding him, “We will continue to stand in defense of … our first, most cherished liberty, religious freedom [emphasis in original],” which presumably also includes, as the USCCB said, freedom of conscience.

Competing consciences?
So it’s clear that the Catholic hierarchy, in pressing this issue, is claiming a deep and enduring moral certitude in its opposition to contraception. That’s what it means to say something is a matter of conscience. It seems equally clear the church is insisting there is both a personal and an institutional conscience to be safeguarded. For even though the church’s language frequently refers to the contraception mandate violating a person’s conscience, the Affordable Care Act certainly does not mandate any contraception usage by an individual. It merely requires only that contraceptives be made generally available by an institution. Yet this is what the church adamantly opposes, thereby ascribing conscience to the institution as well. One might even interpret that to mean the church believes institutional conscience overrides personal conscience, because the church’s position makes no exception to allow for contraception insurance to be provided to individuals in these institutions whose personal consciences would not be violated by it.

On the basis of claiming this institutional, conscientious opposition to contraception, the church now seeks to withhold contraceptive insurance coverage to persons who live beyond its own congregation walls. That’s an extraordinary contraction of individual freedom for the church to try to impose, so it is fair to ask: Is the church’s position here substantive and genuine enough to warrant that? Just how deeply conscientious is the church’s opposition to contraception? How morally urgent is it? Or to ask it in a more pointed way: Is this opposition more about conscience or about control?

A walk through history serves to confirm these are valid questions to ask. Continue reading

Event: Exploring Religious Agendas in Our Public Schools

Wednesday, February 27
6:30pm – registration & networking
7:00pm – program
Colorado College, Armstrong Hall – 14 E. Cache la Poudre
more info 

Tickets: $10 for adults and $5 for students (kids are free but must have tickets), may be purchased online at: http://rdf-ticketing.myshopify.com or in person at the Colorado College Worner Center or in person at EvolveFISH – 5744 N Academy Blvd, Colorado Springs, CO 80918  Continue reading

The “Citizens United” of Religious Liberty

by A.F. Alexander

Citizens United made history. Fifty years ago nobody would have conceived that a business entity equaled personhood. That a legal and tax status, such as incorporation of a business, ensured it the same inalienable rights that our Declaration of Independence declares, and our Constitution protects. Ever since the Supreme Court upheld Citizens United, average Americans have disliked it and began efforts to counter it, including talk of a Constitutional Amendment that would effectively block the high court’s ruling.

     Perhaps that is such old news that nobody blinks when a similarly epic twisting of priorities, the elevating of employer/corporate rights superior to individual religious liberty, made headlines. First the Catholic Church (in May there were 40+ Catholic agencies) and businesses such as Hobby Lobby were asserting their “rights,” as collective or corporate entities, to determine personal health coverage they would allow. This is the equivalent of Citizens United, relegating individual religious conscience and rights as inferior to an organized body’s, or business entity’s. It is not as if this is happening in back rooms with stealthy moves. Rather, it is splashed in news, radio, print, and even Facebook.

This issue has continued to create headlines, most recently because Wheaton College joined with Catholic University in a lawsuit to fight providing standard, common birth control coverage. Initially, the Catholic Church’s protests inspired more widespread sweeping denial of health coverage beyond just birth control as witnessed in the Blunt Amendment. This amendment declared that making any business cover any kind of health coverage that a business entity had a conscientious objection to was a violation of…that company’s rights. Fortunately, it did not pass the Senate. Recently, Tyndale Publishing House picked up that particular banner and now protests covering “abortion pills” as a for-profit corporation, unlike the handfuls of 501c3 non-profits that began the uproar.

August 1, 2012, the Christian Post published poll results that claims fifty-six percent of Catholics who specifically heard of the controversy sided with the Bishops claim of a violation to the church’s religious liberty. The Christian Post didn’t break the poll respondents by male/female categories.

When birth control insurance coverage first became a national controversy, I spoke to several of my Catholic lady friends and acquaintances. I was surprised at the number of professional, independent, and intelligent women who never thought about their personal religious freedom and rights in the matter. Rather, they deferred to the Church’s rights, without a thought to the limiting of their freedom of religious expression and choice – even if they personally took birth control. But one of my friends was so disturbed by this mandate over women, and other pulpit politics from her life-long family denomination, that she considered facing family outrage to leave the Catholic church. Initially, she turned to her parish priest and implored him for a reason to stay, an explanation that might soothe her feelings of betrayal. Rather, she received steadfast dogma and not one ounce of understanding. My friend went through a crisis of faith due to this. She broke completely with the Catholic Church and joined a less political protestant church.

     I then turned to Catholic women’s groups for statements. The National Council of Catholic Women in the U.S. did not reply to my inquiry. The Association of Catholic Women in the United Kingdom did answer my email. It was a standard statement deferring to the Church’s rights and the perceived assault on religious liberty – without a hint of individual rights in general nor women’s religious rights in particular. “…despite employers’ conscientious objections to such treatments on religious grounds, appears to us to be a direct contravention of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is simply incompatible with any restriction on the citizen’s right to live and conduct his affairs in accordance with the teachings of his religion.” This clearly equates an employer’s conscience (a business entity) as being a person’s religious liberty.

The first sentence gives First Amendment coverage to employer’s and the second sentence talks of a citizen’s right to conduct his (or her) right to live and conduct affairs, not as they personally believe – but as their church instructs. There is no recognition that the very concept of religious liberty has been redefined to elevate corporate identity as a person claiming first amendment coverage. Nor is there recognition that they have replaced a citizen’s right to live as they personally believe, in place of following their church – or employer’s beliefs. Let us remember, many people who are employed by the Catholic church are not necessarily Catholic themselves, especially in this economy when a job is a valuable commodity. But as an employer, they can enforce a corporate belief structure on all their employees rather than leave the option to individual beliefs. Those are two very different concepts. Personal religious liberty is discarded in favor of a corporate church’s dictates on congregant’s lives. This results in the individual’s right to choose based on his/her own convictions stomped into the dust in favor of an employer’s conscience – with none of the furor that Citizen’s United continually experiences.

This further institutionalizes business entities as a person. We are witnessing a massive shifting away from religious liberty – from the person and squarely with a church or business entity, and yet nobody seems to recognize it as such. Why don’t more people see the birth-control-insurance-coverage outrage for what it is, corporate rights trumping individual liberty?

A.F. Alexander is the author of “Religious Right: The Greatest Threat to Democracy.” She holds a BSBA degree, as well as a Bachelor of Arts in Sacred Theology. She has worked in “Fortune 500” companies or the defense industry her entire adult life. She is a native of Colorado and has been politically engaged since elementary school. She also witnessed the move of Focus on the Family into her hometown and the dramatic impact it had on the city.

Citizens Project reaches out to local churches

Last week, thanks to the support of many dedicated volunteers, Citizens Project sent a letter to nearly 450 faith communities in the Pikes Peak region advising them of their rights and responsibilities heading in to the 2012 general election. Churches, and all nonprofit organizations classified as 501 (c) 3 under the IRS tax code, are barred from endorsing candidates in elections. See the letter here. Continue reading