|
|
|
XIV.) BJCPA
and the National Council of Churches: Using Religion for
Political
Goals.
1.
This
entire page is about the extreme hypocrisy of the BJC.
Dunn criticizes conservative Christians who use “God talk” in
articulating their political views and their support for certain legislation.
(See first paragraph of page 10
in our BJC flyer) But when
the National Council of Churches (NCC) uses “God talk” in advocating
universal health care, Dunn signs the letter, which was then sent to all the
members of Congress. Ignoring this
obvious aspect of our BJC flyer, Mr. Tichenor states: “Once again, the BJC
does not take a position on the issue of universal health care coverage.
It is not a religious liberty issue.”
Other BJC leaders signing the NCC letter include: Dr. Jimmy Allen, Dr.
Stan Hastey, Dr. Cecil Sherman, Dr. Gardner Taylor, Rev. Robert Tiller and Dr.
Daniel E. Weiss.
2.
The
second section of this page, “BJCPA: Selective Criticism,” contrasts the NCC
to the Christian Coalition. NCC
General Secretary Edwin Espy described the political successes of the NCC during
the 1960’s which resulted in much of the NCC’s general policies being
incorporated into federal legislation. The
NCC is a major ally of the BJC and in fact, former BJC general counsel Buzz
Thomas went to work for the NCC when he left the BJC.
However, when the Christian Coalition attempts to influence legislation,
the BJC has harsh words: “The Christian Coalition
has formulated positions on every issue from tax policy to foreign policy to
legal aid to term limits. The
organization then attaches the name of God to its views, saying, ‘This is
God’s position’ and ‘This is the Christian position.’… When they do
this they are cheapening the name of God; and when they do this they are taking
the Lord’s name in vain.” But
when the NCC lobbies Congress in its effort to influence legislation, not a word
is spoken, much less accusations that the NCC is “taking the Lord’s name in
vain.” (See
section VI.4 for the NCC’s support of gays in the military) 3.
Considering
the BJC’s extreme hostility toward the “Religious Right,” and its strong
support for the NCC, the
fundamental differences between the liberal NCC and the conservative Christian
Coalition should also be noted. The
NCC is a coalition of liberal religious denominations, speaking often for many
who strongly disagree with their liberal views and positions.
The Christian Coalition, on the other hand, is a coalition of individual
American citizens who generally profess to be Christians.
Churches are not members of the Christian Coalition.
Each member is an individual citizen.
When a member disagrees with the positions or policies of the Christian
Coalition, they are free to drop their membership.
That is not an option with the NCC, a group funded by religious
denominations. Thus, the question
needs to be asked - which of these two groups represents a legitimate threat to
church/state separation? Surely,
if there is a threat, a coalition of religious denominations, receiving
government money, lobbying Congress and speaking for many who disagree with its
policies is the greater threat to religious freedom.
4. Mr. Tichenor did not deal with the section of our BJC flyer (page 10) entitled “NCC Receives Federal Funding: BJCPA General Counsel Joins NCC Staff.” The issue raised in this section is that the BJC’s commitment to “no government aid for religion” obviously does not apply to government funding of the religious left. In 1996, $9 million of the NCC’s budget came from U.S. taxpayer money. Yet, despite the BJC’s hard-line stance against “government aid to religion,” it has been silent about the flow of government money into the coffers of the NCC -- money that allows the NCC to carrying out it’s liberal “religious” agenda. However, when it comes to tuition tax credits or vouchers that would allow parents a choice in their child’s education, the BJC and its allies on the left are quick to sound the alarm that such an approach to education is “unconstitutional,” because such an approach would ultimately result in “government aid to religion,” since some parents would use that money to send their children to a Christian school. However, this issue becomes even more interesting when the government funding of the NCC -- a coalition of religious denominations -- is contrasted to an individual parent receiving a voucher or a tuition tax credit in order to opt out of a public school, because those schools, which are mandated by government to be “secular,” undermine the “sincerely held religious convictions” of the parents. For the BJC, government money going directly to a parent, who then might use that money at a Christian school, represents “government aid to religion” and is clearly unconstitutional. But government money going directly to the NCC is conveniently ignored. On the front page of the BJC’s journal, Report from the Capital, AU executive director Barry Lynn states: “Whether the cash flows through a direct government faucet or a parental pipeline, tax aid to religious schools is unconstitutional.” (June 27, 1995) Dunn articulates well the BJC’s belief that government support for anything other than government schools is unacceptable: “As citizens we should not want tax dollars to support the programs of religious institutions. It matters not if the government funds would not go directly for religious instruction. As public monies flow into sectarian operations, the money is simply shifted from one pocket to the other to insure federal aid for the religious institutions. It’s merely a matter of bookkeeping. The freedom essential to witness is compromised with the acceptance of the public’s money.” (Report from the Capital, James Dunn, Sept. 1990, p. 15) Apparently, the BJC only applies this principle to conservative Christians and their institutions and churches. It is also important to note another aspect of the BJC’s assault on Christian schools. Dunn states what is commonly heard from the left – that government regulations follow government aid. He states: “Another concern is the threat to religious schools. Government regulation follows government aid. Church schools would have to comply with federal guidelines and regulations and lose something of their freedom to evangelize and speak prophetically: He who pays the fiddler calls the tune.” (Church & State, July - August 1991, pg. 13) Americans United executive director Barry Lynn sounds a similar alarm: “When religion seeks aid from the state, it is always at the state’s mercy. When religion seeks promotion by the state, it will forever face the inevitable cheapening of the faith that comes from such support.” (Church & State, April 1993, pg. 23) Obviously, such concerns do not apply to liberal religious institutions like the NCC. However, it is important to note that while liberal church/state separationist groups like the BJC and AU speak out of one side of their mouths to the churches, warning us of the dangers of government regulations, they speak to government out of the other side of their mouths calling for government regulations. According to AU, where Dunn serves as a trustee: “No school should receive a single taxpayer dollar unless it is completely controlled by the public and subject to all of our laws respecting non-discrimination and church-state separation.” (Church & State, Editorial, May 1991, pg. 11) Americans United further stated: “If ‘private’ schools receive tax dollars from all Americans, they ought not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring or student admissions. Nor should such schools be allowed to teach a sectarian curriculum or require religious devotions. If tax aid flows to a ‘private’ school, it should play by all of the regulations that public schools operate under.” (Church & State, Editorial, September 1992, pg. 12) According to Americans United, even a tax deduction for tuition cost represents government aid to religion. In a friend-of-the-court brief, AU argues that “tax deductions funnel state financial support to religious schools and bring them students for religious indoctrination.” The brief further state: “…there is no constitutional distinction between tuition reimbursement and tax deductions. Both ultimately act as a reimbursement to the tuition-paying parent. In both cases the state would be helping to pay for religious education.” (Church & State, January 1983, pg. 13) 5.
In
the October 17, 1995 issue of Report from
the Capital, the BJC reported that: “Joan Brown Campbell, general
secretary of the National Council of Churches, has objected to proposed
legislation to restrict lobbying and other advocacy activities by groups
receiving federal grants.” The
brief article further quotes Ms. Campbell stating that “Congress is moving to
‘limit, or even to silence, voices that disagree with the narrow agenda of the
religious and political right.’” (pg.
1) |