The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the ADF is double-dog daring churches to step over the line of Separation:

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

...

Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance's senior legal counsel.

Translation: we're hoping to partisanize conservative congregations, since who knows how many Justice Sundays did squat for us before. The law is quite settled here, and IRS complaints take a long time to settle, much less litigate. So the legal effect for 2006 is basically nil, meaning this is a political maneuver.

Oh yeah, and this is crap:

The section of the tax code barring nonprofits from intervening in political campaigns has long frustrated clergy. Many ministers consider the provision an inappropriate government intrusion, blocking the duty of clergy to advise congregants.

I have yet to meet a pastor who feels this way. Responsible ministers understand that the First Amendment does as much or more to protect their congregations than it does to muffle their voice. More important, they understand that the mission of the church is to be the church, not an adjunct to a political movement.

C. Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance had a statement on the ADF's move that seems on-the-money:

Houses of worship belong to divine authority – they are not the property of either political party.  The Alliance Defense Fund’s call for pastors to break the law represents the height of irresponsibility.  They are putting churches across the country unnecessarily at risk to costly and time-consuming investigations that could result in harsh financial penalties.  Putting churches in legal and financial jeopardy seems a bizarre way of defending religious freedom, which the ADF claims to defend.

But there is an even greater issue at stake in this campaign than violating the law.  When religious leaders endorse candidates from the pulpit, they weaken both the sanctity of religion and the integrity of democracy.  The IRS allows – and the Interfaith Alliance encourages – religious leaders to speak out on the important political issues of the day, but when clergy endorse specific candidates or parties in their official capacity, they abuse their pastoral authority.

Damn skippy.

For the first time in a presidential election, and on the eve of the South Carolina primaries, a new series of television and newspaper ads is being launched to urge presidential candidates to protect religious freedom.

The first set of advertisements feature legendary actors Jack Klugman and James Whitmore, and are designed to educate candidates and voters that religion has a place in American life, but not as a political tool.

crossposted from dailykos at the request of loggersbrat

Romney's speech  has led to much bloviation.  I watched Chris Matthews say how it was the best speech of this political season, althouh eventually he acknowledged that there were some problem areas.  David Brooks has written a somewhat sensible column.  The Boston Globe has an editorial entitled Romney on bended knee in which they note

Romney got applause when he criticized those who would supplant a faith-centered nation with "the religion of secularism." But given the amount of violence and intolerance that various religions have generated throughout history, it is unwise to insist that religious belief is a prerequisite for freedom.

 I'm not sure that an ordinary school teacher aka blogger has much to add to the discussion, but as this is a question that concerns me, I will offer a few thoughts below the fold.

The Carpetbagger finds another gem: the American Family Association wants to ban porn on US military installations:

Now, Wildmon and the AFA have a new concern: U.S. troops’ access to adult materials.

Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn’t consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

“They’re saying ‘we’re not selling stuff that’s sexually explicit’ … and we say it’s pornography,” says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to “get the Pentagon to obey the law,” he adds.

Let me get this straight. U.S. troops are fighting two wars, neither of which are going well, and the American Family Association’s biggest concern is what kind of magazines the troops can purchase on base? Here’s a radical idea: maybe those who wear the uniform and put their lives on the line for their country should be able to read whatever they want.

I'm hardly Larry Flynt's best friend, but yes, whatever happened to having priorities straight? Are they afraid that Hugh Hefner is going to steal our brave servicemen's precious bodily fluids?

I'm sure Tom Perriello will have a statement out on this soonest.

While perusing Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo this afternoon, I found a TPM news article on the legal judgment against Westboro Baptist Church. Looks like Fred Phelps and his family have taken their crazy anti-gay protests to one too many funerals.

originally posted at dailykos

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

I have no intention of offering a sermon.  Neither did the author of the words I just quoted, which are from A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation, an op ed by Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek.  Immediately after the words with which I began, Meacham reminds us that

The only acknowledgment of religion in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated "in the year of our Lord 1787." Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

I believe Meacham's piece is a useful reminder, which I want to explore in the context of attitudes, actions and events of our own day.

Do you know what makes me angry? What really chafes my shorts? What makes me feel like tossing a few people in the lake of fire?

Well, I'm glad you asked. It's insane fricking idiots like this (not Greenwald, but the people he cites):

UPDATE IV: I'm pretty much speechless about this, which takes a lot given the amount of time I spend swimming around in the primordial muck of neoconservative fantasies. The project to which Dave Gaubatz is currently devoting his time is called "Mapping Sharia in America", the purpose of which is to create a comprehensive map of every mosque and Islamic school in the U.S. This is what he says:

It is our task to conduct an extensive mapping of all the Islamic day schools, mosques, and other identifiable organizations in the US and to determine which ones teach or preach Islamic law, Shari’a. Further, the mapping will scale the Shari’a threat by identifying to which school of jurisprudence it belongs, its historical and contemporary call for Jihad, and whether the Jihad includes violent Jihad against non-believers.

This investigation will also map the leadership of these Muslim organizations and their other affiliations. We will also attempt to uncover any related businesses used or run by the organizations as fronts for money laundering and other illicit activities.

Finally, we will examine and map any potential targets situated near these organizations, such as city, county, and federal government buildings, schools and universities, US military installations, major utility or infrastructure sites (i.e., nuclear installations, pipelines, water supply, etc.), and transportation hubs.

The ultimate goal is "to produce an interactive map that allows a macro- and micro-analysis of the current Shari’a-based Jihadists in the US, together with a fact-specific threat level analysis." It provides helpful hints to those who want to pitch in, such as this:

 

Be in touch with us by sending in tips on new mosques, Islamic day schools, and the like. There is no crime in keeping tabs on these organizations but it is a crime of indifference to pretend that the Jihadists walking down your streets and preaching to the faithful are not a threat to our national existence and existence simply!

Gaubatz has secret sources which told him why all of this is so necessary:

 
What we also know from our intelligence sources, and again much of this is public information, is that the ideological infrastructure is already in place for the Islamic assault on American (sic) from within America. This includes Islamic mosques, day schools, and social clubs and other organizations openly teaching historical, traditional and authoritative Islamic law or Shari'a.

This is the individual to whom Glenn Reynolds, Powerline, Michelle Malkin's blog and scores of others are pointing as the Iraqi Weapons Expert who knows the Real Truth behind Saddam's Missing WMDs. They do this all the time. How can anyone rational take right-wing pundits like these seriously? How far behind can Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh be with this story?

Let me put this in the strongest possible terms: Pastor Angry! Smash wingnut idiocy!! Smash!!! Grrr!!!!

Freedom of the pulpit is an absolute. Without it, no minister or rabbi or imam can do their job. We cannot lead our congregations into the moral lives to which they have been called if we are constantly looking over our shoulders to see if we've crossed some arbitrary ideological line erected by fools so spooked by brown people that they cannot allow a diversity of religious belief in their nation.

To monitor what is taught at the mosques and Islamic societies of America is beneath contempt. It makes my pulpit less secure.

More to the point, it undermines the very things it claims to stand for. We cannot defend the liberties granted by the First Amendment by curtailing them for select people. If a Muslim leader preaches radical Islam, let him. That's speech. If he does something to actually incite violence or takes action to support terrorism, that's another thing. It can and should be punished.

It's incredible to me that we should have to review such basic legal concepts in this day and age, but there it is.

Even worse, though, is that we should have to explain a basic theological concept as: God stands beyond the political life of a transitory nation. By measuring the religious practice of Muslims according to the scare tactics of the most corrupt and incompetent administration America has ever seen, these fools have placed the Word of God at the service of Dick Cheney.

Yes, yes, clash of civilizations, ideological Islamofascism. Whatever.

I am the Lord your God, brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am I jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Shorter Yahweh: I made you free, don't doubt me. I don't appreciate you worshiping anything other than me, whether that's a statue or some misbegotten ideal of a "War on Terror". Oh, and don't use my good name to further your own creepy agenda.

The systemic monitoring of Muslim pulpits is pure fascism, hypocrisy and idolatry. Is that clear now? I wish I could say for sure, but somehow, I think these fools aren't going to get it.

Okay, so officially the case before the Supreme Court today is known as Morse v. Frederick. The New York Times explains why my title is also appropriate:

On the surface, Joseph Frederick’s dispute with his principal, Deborah Morse, at the Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska five years ago appeared to have little if anything to do with religion — or perhaps with much of anything beyond a bored senior’s attitude and a harried administrator’s impatience.

As the Olympic torch was carried through the streets of Juneau on its way to the 2002 winter games in Salt Lake City, students were allowed to leave the school grounds to watch. The school band and cheerleaders performed. With television cameras focused on the scene, Mr. Frederick and some friends unfurled a 14-foot-long banner with the inscription: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus."

Mr. Frederick later testified that he designed the banner, using a slogan he had seen on a snowboard, "to be meaningless and funny, in order to get on television." Ms. Morse found no humor but plenty of meaning in the sign, recognizing "bong hits" as a slang reference to using marijuana. She demanded that he take the banner down. When he refused, she tore it down, ordered him to her office, and gave him a 10-day suspension.

The surprising thing about the case is that many groups who traditionally battle one another have lined up on Frederick's side:

While it is hardly surprising to find the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Coalition Against Censorship on Mr. Frederick’s side, it is the array of briefs from organizations that litigate and speak on behalf of the religious right that has lifted Morse v. Frederick out of the realm of the ordinary.

The groups include the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson; the Christian Legal Society; the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization based in Arizona that describes its mission as "defending the right to hear and speak the Truth"; the Rutherford Institute, which has participated in many religion cases before the court; and Liberty Legal Institute, a nonprofit law firm "dedicated to the preservation of First Amendment rights and religious freedom."

Ordinarily, you'd expect those religious groups to come down for Authority. But here they are sticking up for stoner humor. Why? As one lawyer explains, "The status of being a dissident unites dissidents on either side".

Melissa Rogers and others will no doubt have legal analysis on the case soon enough. For me, it's enough to say that this is just more grist for the mill. These folks can be reached issue by issue.