Churches, States and Politics

Church leaders have no right to tell voters how to vote; nor do they have any right to punish voters for how they vote. Period. End of Statement.

But he said his congregants shouldn't take Communion until they do penance for supporting "the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president."

This is a massive abuse of the church's position in society, and a serious breach of the social contract that provides churches with a privileged, tax exempt status.

Just as I took Bishop Henry to task for threatening to withdraw communion for politicians who voted contrary to his church teachings on the gay marriage issue in Canada, this is the same kind of abuse, and it deserves to be called out for what it is.

The church is free to exercise such powers, but as soon as it does so on matters directly related to a voter's individual participation in democracy, it is time to put them on the same legal, social and taxation footing as every other political activist organization. Anything less is to accept once again the clergy dictating to the politicians that govern our respective countries how they should govern. We've been there before, and it wasn't a pretty picture.

Breaking The Separation of Church and State

Via Pam's House Blend, we have what is possibly one of the most blatant violations of the separation of Church and State (especially as it is legally described in the US constitution) - a Bishop making specific dictates about how members of his faith are obliged to vote.

In both Canada and the United States, Churches are granted a unique tax-exempt status that is not granted to political lobby organizations. Apparently, it's past time that we revisited that tax exempt status - especially if church clergy are going to attempt to dictate to either voters or politicians how they should vote on issues.

In recent years, church hierarchies seem to have lost sight of their status and have chosen to inject themselves more directly in the political dialog of the nation - from the pulpit. That's fine, but at that point it is necessary to level the playing field in terms of economics. Either political lobby organizations become tax exempt, or churches lose that benefit. Attempting to dictate to voters (or politicians) how they must act puts them firmly in the public discourse over matters of policy and law.

Church Attendance - It's All Feminism's Fault

This appeared just before Christmas in the Globe and Mail's Opinion Section.

Apparently Michael Valpy has bought into the neo-fundamentalist line that the reason that attendance at churches has largely dropped in Canada since young women turned away from the churches some forty odd years ago.

But with research showing mothers to be the prime influencers of their offspring's religious behaviour, it remains the rejection of the church by young women 40 years ago that was so catastrophic. Their children never came through the doors.

There is little doubt that feminism and conservative christianity have clashed over the decades. However, it is indeed simplistic and outright silly to apply a single cause explanation to something as complex as a societal shift such as what Valpy is addressing.

The various alternate explanations Valpy explores all suffer from a fundamental omission - that of a growing availability of advanced education and concrete knowledge of the world around us becoming commonly available for the public.

Think on it for a few minutes, and you start to realize that as people become more educated and critical in their thinking, often the less they need the kind of guidance that the Christian Church has traditionally provided. {This isn't to say that there aren't educated people who are religious}

Additionally, as an increasing body of evidence calls into question statements that are made in scripture (e.g. much of the creation story in Genesis), it further erodes the relevance of scripture to many people who would rely on it for guidance if they didn't perceive it as filled with questionable assumptions.

There may well be a myriad of other factors in play as well - the rise in prevalence of other faiths, a growing sense of individualism come to mind, as well as a growing "highly mobile urbanization". Churches have historically been social focal points for fairly small geographic areas - towns, villages etc. Late 20th Century urbanization brought with it the "suburb" - essentially an attempt to nestle a small town in the greater body of a city - but with it came the proliferation of cars and transit. Instead of social lives centering around relatively small geographic areas, people now drive considerable distances to visit friends and family.

If I look at my own life, none of my intimate social network lives "walking distance" from me. Everybody is at least 10 minutes away by car. I interact with my neighbors infrequently at best - a handful of times a year perhaps. What possible connection am I likely to have with my neighborhood church? (especially after having moved a few times over the years)

Valpy has tackled a complex topic, and missed badly. His article falls into the trap of grasping at a simplistic explanation that utterly fails to explain the phenomenon he is exploring. To distill the last 40 years into "mothers don't take their children to church" is little more than a bad attempt at sophistry.

Activist Clergy

In the last few years, we've seen an increasing level of religious figures engaging openly in the political dialogue of their respective nations. (Or, in the case of Pope Ratz, all nations)

Whether we are talking about Bishop Henry in Calgary, Pope Ratzinger's various declarations, or Bishops demanding "reviews" of a nation's laws on Abortion.

I do not for a moment wish to argue that being a member of the clergy means that one does not have a legitimate interest and voice in politics. Far from it.

However, the clergy enjoys a unique, and privileged position in many Western countries. We grant Churches exemption from taxation, a privilege granted to no group that acts as a political lobby. In a nation where no official religion is recognized, this privilege is extended to any organization that can describe itself as a "church". By definition, a church's clergy are privileged people - given unique access to a regular platform for influencing the views of a great many people.

To what extent should we grant clergy the right to use their position as influential public figures as a platform from which to engage in political activism? We've seen Bishop Henry in Calgary make some pretty awful statements in the past, and others have attempted to influence our politicians through what I have come to call "spiritual blackmail" - such as denying communion to a politician who doesn't legislate according to what the Church demands. (It is not the denial that is significant, it is the often public statement of that threat/punishment)

Churches are not neutral parties - and in fact they can be amazingly rigid and (by modern standards), bigoted. One example is the anti-semitic overtones of Catholic Tridentine Mass recently "reapproved" by the Pope should concern many in a society that claims that all people are equal.

The Latin, or Tridentine rite contains a prayer that is read on Good Friday calling for the conversion of Jews. The U.S.-based Anti-Defamation League has criticized Benedict's decision, calling it a "theological setback" and a "body blow to Catholic-Jewish relations."

The 16th-century mass is traditionally delivered by a priest in Latin with his back to the congregation throughout the service.

How lovely. In essence, we have a pope here who is approving the revival of a pattern of prayer that is politely described as hostile to another faith. Coming from this particular pope, I'm hardly surprised by that revelation, but I don't think it reflects anything positive either.

When religion can foster conflicts and grudges that are ages old, and we already grant Churches a significantly privileged status in our society, should we allow them a free voice, or perhaps it is time to start demanding to "follow the money", and whatever percentage of their resources that is spent on political lobby/activism becomes taxable just like any other political lobby. (For example, I would argue that Bishop Henry's "pastoral letters" of a couple of years ago, and the distribution thereof would represent political activism. The costs of that activism come out of Church coffers, and whatever that cost is becomes taxable income.