Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

And here is where the fundamentalists start to run into problems when they want to break down any barriers between church and state.

Poor Ralph Reed is getting what he said he wanted, except it's not really what he wanted after all . . .

A Hypocrite's Lament: Ralph Reed Blasts Government Support For Gay-Friendly Church
Rob Boston printable version print page Bookmark and Share
Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:25:15 AM EST
 

On Saturday, I received a letter from my old acquaintance Ralph Reed.

Reed, you might recall, ran TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition throughout the 1990s. After leaving the group, he started a political consulting firm that became mired in the Jack Abramoff casino lobbying scandal. He also tried unsuccessfully to launch a political career and even wrote some political potboilers.

 

None of these ventures gave Reed the payoff he wanted, so he came slinking back to the Religious Right. A few years ago, he formed a group called the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

Reed's letter to me focuses on the National Cathedral here in Washington, D.C. Ralph is distraught because the cathedral in 2011 received $700,000 in tax money from the U.S. Interior Department for foundation repairs, metal work and restoration of stained-glass windows. Officials at Interior defended the grant by insisting that the cathedral is an historic structure.

Americans United protested the federal subsidy at the time. We agree that the cathedral is historic, but it remains an active Episcopal church with a congregation and regular worship services. It is owned by a religious denomination and is not a museum. The people in its pews, not the taxpayers, should pay for its repair and upkeep, we argued.

Throughout the course of his career, Reed has pushed for voucher subsidies for religious schools, "faith-based" funding for various ministries and so on. Like a lot of fundamentalists, he seems to believe that taxpayer support for religion is not really a problem.

But suddenly it is a problem for Ralph, at least in this case. Why? Well, he's upset because the National Cathedral has announced that it will perform same-sex marriages. For this reason, Reed says, it should be denied public support.

"The Faith and Freedom Coalition is leading a national charge against this policy by launching a nationwide petition DEMANDING that all taxpayer dollars to support the National Cathedral be IMMEDIATELY discontinued," Reed blusters in the letter.

Oh, Ralph! Are you really that clueless?

Let me try to explain this to you: Ralph, you spent most of your professional life working to undermine the wall of separation between church and state and electing men and women who don't respect that protective barrier. Those elected officials, in turn, nominated judges who also don't see much use for the church-state wall. Their rulings have weakened it. One of the things they did was erode previous court decisions that flatly barred tax aid to religious institutions.

And you see, Ralph, once we start going down this road, we can't make distinctions among churches based on their political views, as your group would apparently have us do. The government would have to use neutral criteria to decide these questions.

Here's a better alternative: No taxpayer money for houses of worship. Period.

If we had stuck with that constitutional principle, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. I'd also like to point out that it's a wee bit hypocritical to advocate for government support for religion as long as it's a religion you like and then screaming bloody murder when it's extended to a faith you don't care for.

Here's the bottom line: There is one thing that could have stopped taxpayer aid from propping up the National Cathedral - the separation of church and state. Reed has spent nearly his entire professional life laboring to undermine that principle. Thanks in part to his nefarious schemes, tax money is now flowing to a church that has policies with which he disapproves.

Reed's not happy about this.

I hate to say I told you so, Ralph, but we did. Over and over.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Entertaining, isn't it?  So, Ralph, and those like him, fight to get special privileges for churches - government protection, freedom from taxes, special status, and political influence - but when a church that isn't exactly what they envisioned as "properly Christian" starts to benefit from those things they fought for . . . well, it's distressing to say the least.

Discuss.

Answer Question
 
jsbenkert

Asked by jsbenkert at 7:18 PM on Feb. 25, 2013 in Religious Debate

Level 37 (89,331 Credits)
Answers (3)
  • I don't think he has any right to tell a Church what their policy should be. It's hypocritical.
    momto2boys973

    Answer by momto2boys973 at 7:28 PM on Feb. 25, 2013

  • ha!

    thats all i got... :D
    okmanders

    Answer by okmanders at 8:26 PM on Feb. 25, 2013

  • Oh well.
    booklover545

    Answer by booklover545 at 11:40 AM on Feb. 26, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN