Today’s Reading List – October 27, 2006 | Article VI Blog

The latest issue of Imprimus contains an address by Daniel Dreisbach on "The Wall of Separation" and the use of metaphor in jurisprudence.

The conventional wisdom is that Jefferson’s wall represents a universal principle concerning the prudential and constitutional relationship between religion and the civil state. In fact, this wall had less to do with the separation between religion and all civil government than with the separation between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion…

One of the reasons I work so hard on this blog is because if for some reason Romney is not elected because of his faith, then the next step is for all faith. The diverse nature of religious expression in this nation has allowed my religion to flourish like no other time in history, as with many others. To restrict one is to restrict all.

This from Suzanne Fields in a similar vein

The Founding Fathers, tutored intellectually and sometimes theologically in the Judeo-Christian tradition, counted on the wall separating church and state to insulate religion. [Emphasis added.]

She then goes on to point out the problems with Andrew Sullivan's latest book, and its inherent attack on Evangelicals. See also Hugh Hewitt's recent interview with Sullivan and related commentary. It seems obvious that for the left they felt they had religion "tamed." But, the evangelical movement has broken those bonds. Mormons, since they share evangelical values, if not theology, are considered by the left equally "on the loose." When the left attacks one religion, whether it be Sullivan and his cries of "christianist" or McCain and "the great Mormon conspiracy," they attack us all.

Here's an interesting, if somewhat contrary, take on the whole "Mormon network" thing. I agree with her take on "neutrality" – values affect voting patterns and religion shapes values. Its purely a semantic distinction, but worth noting. As to her contention that Romney having a "Mormon network" harms him with Evangelicals – I don't think so. We do too much networking ourselves, and sharing of network resources along issue lines, for that to be a genuine concern.

Which brings me to an interesting thought. As Lowell points out, loss of tax-exempt status would be devastating for any church. It seems to me that we have come to the point where the IRS defines what is and what is not a "legitimate" church. When it comes to the "wall of separation" as Jefferson conceived of it – does that not go a long way towards tearing it down?

Update (two items worth considering before the weekend):

Smart move or not? One the one hand, there has been and will be considerable amounts of bad reporting on what the CJCLDS does and does not believe and do. They need to have some control of their own image and narrative. But this news, on the heels of the Globe – "Mormon network" controversy, seems to serve to underscore problems as opposed to alleviate them. There is a bit of condemned if you do, condemned if you don't in this.

Lowell: I have heard that the church was going to do this anyway, in anticipation of a Romney candidacy provoking an unprecedented volume of news media inquiries about church beliefs, political neutrality, and so forth. This looks like a "gearing up" operation to me. If so, that seems like the sort of activity to be expected from any large organization that is expecting increased news media attention.

Hugh Hewitt and Andrew Sullivan – showdown for the decades. I have defended Sullivan's right to call himself a "Christian" in the past, but after that, such may be stretching the tent a bit large. Mark Roberts begins to explain why. Bottom line: Religion is its own authority and cannot be warped to provide political power, that, far more than tax law, is what robs it of its legitimacy.

Share and Enjoy: