"The Rev." Barry Lynn: Continuing a long-standing tradition

In the June/July issue of First Things (not yet available online), you will find this little snippet about the latest exploits of the man who loves to be called "Reverend."

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is outraged, but then he usually is. When a few months ago the National Portrait Gallery removed a video showing large ants crawling over a crucifix, he declared, "This is religiously based censorship, pure and simple, and it's reprehensible."

The good reverend, a minister in the United Church of Christ, then lectured the video's critics about artistic freedom. "If some people believe a show offends their religious sensibilities, the answer is for them not to go to it. They should not have the right to control what art the rest of us can see."

We're wondering how exactly this qualifies as censorship. All the critics did was exercise their own First Amendment right to free speech and criticize the National Portrait Gallery, which receives substantial public funding, for including the video in an exhibit. The gallery then removed the video voluntarily. Anyone who wants to see it can easily watch it on YouTube. Any private art gallery can show it. Lynn could put it up in the AU foyer instead of a Christmas tree.

The separation of church and state, in the absolutist way Lynn understands it, has to mean separation of irreligion and state. Whatever ants crawling over a crucifix is supposed to mean, we're probably safe in saying it's some sort of criticism of Christianity. It takes sides in a religious controversy. In other words, it's a religious work. If Lynn were consistent, he would have joined the critics in demanding its removal.

The truth, we suspect, is that the Rev. Barry Lynn doesn't really care about the separation of church and state. What he cares about is advancing secularism, and screams of protest at any religious voice in the public square are a great way to do it. Never mind that these voices are often merely asking that the religion of irreligion be subject to Lynn's same view of the First Amendment.

There is a strange, but fitting, appropriateness in the fact that "the Rev. Barry Lynn" is a minister (so-called) in the denomination whose beginnings can be traced, however obscurely, to the colonial Puritans of Massachusetts Bay. In a sense, "the good reverend" is merely continuing a long-standing tradition.

Joseph Bottum on the mosque and the messiness of democracy

In posting some random thoughts a few weeks ago, I noted that Islam is the one glaring exception (aside from atheism) to the mutual respect among the various particular religions necessary for religion in general to flourish in a free society and that, with regard to the construction of the Ground Zero mosque, the principle of freedom of religion must be tempered with respectful guidance about the responsibility that freedom requires. In his column today at On the Square, Joseph Bottum makes a similar observation, but goes a step further in addressing a deeper problem which the debate over the mosque has laid bare.

The offensiveness looks like this: Regardless of how it is intended, it will be perceived by radical Muslims around the world as a giant monument, in the heart of the beast itself, to their success in attacking America. Indeed, it will be perceived by many Americans that way. The funereal and memorial emotion that embraces one on a visit to the Ground Zero site will be weakened—poisoned, just a little—by the presence of this new, grand construction.

Yes, there have been other mosques in the vicinity for years, but they are small, ordinary things, not this grand statement. And yes, the organizers of the project insist that they are moderates, with a history of intra-religious cooperation. So what? Muslim institutions do not have a good track record for preventing themselves from being taken over by radicals, and moderation relative to the rest of Islam (as Ross Douthat has pointed out) isn’t moderation relative to the rest of America. People died here in the name of Islam, and we’re not really eased all that much merely because the people behind the Cordoba Initiative insist they hold a different kind of Islam.

Meanwhile, the constitutionality looks like this: The government really shouldn’t be in the business of regulating the ways in which the sheer existence of a religious building offends the public sensibility. “This is America,” President Obama intoned, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.”

Yes, the New York City government is still refusing permission for the Greek Orthodox church destroyed in the attacks of September 11 to rebuild. And yes, one wishes that the unshakeable commitment to religious freedom didn’t get shaken so much when the topic is, say, forcing pro-life pharmacists to issue morning-after pills or requiring Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

But the principle remains sound, even when it is violated or honored only in the breach. It isn’t simply that religious institution have a right to be treated no worse than other institutions. They have, in fact, a right to be treated better, with more deference, by the government under our constitutional scheme. If such an institution wishes to be offensively bloody minded, there isn’t—or, at least, there shouldn’t be—much that an American government can do about it.

Which is almost what Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama (initially) said. Almost. They rightly insisted on the constitutional principle that government could not intervene, but then they drew the conclusion that the discussion should thus be over—and that only bigots and un-American theocrats would continue agitating against an Islamic center near Ground Zero.

The self-congratulation in all this is a little hard to take—a kind of belief that, unfolded in full, would betray a vast sense of superiority to both those culturally backward Muslims who must be offered such tolerance and to those culturally backward Americans who must be lectured on tolerance.

The deeper problem with this line, however, is that it assumes government is the only actor: the only power, the only arbiter, the only law in America. If the government can do nothing, than nothing can be done.

The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote a column that might be the model for this kind of thinking about public affairs—this way of feeling about public affairs. Curiously calling for ex-President Bush to enter the debate and calm the people current-President Obama was incapable of soothing, the column was profoundly bothered by the mere existence of criticism. The failure to build the mosque, Dowd perversely declared, would be a triumph for those who hate America: “the ultimate victory for Osama and the 9/11 hijackers is the moral timidity that would ban a mosque.”

Real democracy is messy. It’s got protestors and agitators and banners and manners and morals and financial pressures and gossip and policemen on horses keeping an eye out to make sure it doesn’t turn violent. Oh, yes, it’s also got government, but apart from paying for those policemen, government ought not to be too deeply involved as these things sort themselves out. If what the Muslims want to do is not illegal, than government should have nothing more to say.

That does not mean, however, that everyone else should also have nothing more to say. The attempt to build a large, new mosque and Islamic center anywhere near the site of the World Trade Center is so offensive, so bizarre, and so deliberate that it should be stopped.

And stopped it will be, through the offered mediation of New York’s Archbishop Dolan, or the skittishness of the financial community, or the disturbance of the neighbors, or the anger of the protestors, or the refusal of the building contractors. It will be messy, and it will be sharp. Inspiring and disturbing, with loud shouts on the streets and a few quiet words in the back rooms.

But that’s democracy—it’s how things get done when you accept that government shouldn’t do everything. The churches and the synagogues have long experience with this kind of democratic negotiation. Time for the mosques to learn how to do it, too.

Freedom and responsibility at Ground Zero (just a thought)

Freedom of religion is a principle rooted in several presuppositions. First is the presupposition of religion itself as inherently beneficial to society. Religion ought to be free because religion ought to flourish. A society in which religion flourishes is a better society than one in which religion is controlled or discouraged. That is, a society in which religion flourishes is a truly free society.

Second is the presupposition of mutual respect among the various religious parties. While the path has not always been easy, the U.S. has progressed over the last 200+ years into a society in which Jews and Christians, Protestants and Catholics have been able to co-exist peacefully and respectfully while, along the way, assimilating several distinctly American religions (Mormonism, Scientology) and some lesser Eastern religions (which usually come and go according to the latest pop culture fads) into its religiously pluralistic culture.

Aside from atheism (which is a philosophy, not a religion), Islam is emerging as the one glaring exception to the mutual respect necessary for religion to flourish in a free society. Insisting on building a mosque on the ground held sacred by persons of all faiths is merely the latest illustration of the Islamic tendency toward supremacy and triumphalism that is, as yet, untempered by its interaction with the wider American religious culture. Yes, there is a time for celebrating freedom and extolling the virtues of this grand experiment we call America. But there is also a time to offer sober and respectful guidance to those new to the American experience, so as to instill in them an understanding of the responsibility which that freedom requires of them.

Koehl: An independent witness to marriage

Over On the Square, Stuart Koehl offers a provocative, and bold, solution to the problem confronting the church over the oxymoron of "gay marriage."

Today, the general consensus on marriage has become irrevocably broken. There are fundamental differences between the two regarding the nature and purpose of marriage, which in a secular society means, inevitably, that the state’s understanding of marriage is going to prevail, and be enforced by coercive measures.

We are reverting to the pre-Constantinian situation, where the Church has no legal standing and its doctrines are considered to be private matters (when they are not considered to be seditious). The solution is a return to the pre-Constantinian practice of the Church in which a Church marriage is a purely sacramental matter, subject to the doctrine and disciplines of the Church, but without legal standing.

Legal recognition of marriage would become a purely civil matter. A couple who wanted to marry would have to get a license and go to a civil magistrate. If they then wanted their union sacramentalized, they would go to the Church. If the Church refused to marry them because they did not meet its criteria for a sacramental wedding—if both parties were of the same sex, for example—the state could do nothing about it, since the Church is a voluntary association protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Thus disencumbered from its role as an agent of the state, the Church would be free to teach, encourage, and set an example for the rest of the world. It would not have to worry about the legal ramifications of its actions. And this could provide the freedom the Church needs to reshape marriage in the West in a way political and legal activism will not, and cannot.

Decoupled from the state, the Church can preach the Gospel with regard to marriage and human sexuality generally, backed up by enforcement of its canonical and ascetic disciplines, without fear of state sanction—assuming the Church is willing to accept the burden of proclaiming a truth so contrary to the prevailing zeitgeist.

It will not be enough for the Church simply to surrender its role as an agent of the state in marriage; the bishops of the Church must also provide visible and courageous leadership, including setting their own house in order, regardless of the cost to their popularity and standing with the cultural elites. The Church must extend its leadership to the instruction of the ignorant, support for the weak or confused, and reconciliation of the fallen.

For, ultimately, it is not through the law that the oxymoron of gay marriage will be turned back, but by the conversion of individual human hearts. The power of the Church’s witness to truth, combined with a growing recognition of the necessity of traditional marriage and the havoc wrought by the host of “alternative relationships” will, if the Church remains faithful to her calling, lead to a return to sanity.

Koehl's proposal is worth considering. Looking back, a clash between church and state over the definition of marriage was inevitable in a society with no state-sponsored church. A civil marriage is a contractual agreement, whereas a sacramental marriage is a covenant relationship. Indeed, the church has always recognized holy matrimony as "an honorable estate, instituted by God, signifying to us the mystical union between Christ and his Church" (BCP). A contract can be broken. A covenant, of this nature, is supposed to be forever.

Lichfield: Don't be afraid to show your faith at Christmas

What is the mark of the Christian?
A pastoral letter by the Bishop of Lichfield for November Parish Magazines in the Diocese of Lichfield

We’re just getting to the season when the papers like to report on local councils who, out of concern for ethnic minorities, have banned Christmas in favour of Winterval or another silly name. This year that kind of story is likely to be more than matched by stories of big firms sacking those people who want to wear a cross or a fish lapel badge or some other sign of the Christian faith. It is sheer ignorance of course.

Ethnic minorities are far more anxious about the rampant secularism and commercialism that erodes all Christian standards than they are about their host country properly celebrating its Christian foundations. No one goes to a Muslim country and expects local councils to silence the mosques out of sensitivity to Christians. The Christian roots to our governance should not be nibbled away without discussion. Sometimes I think it wouldn’t be a bad thing if in December we all wore a fish badge or cross necklace and sent out a loud message that Christians aren’t going to disappear quietly from the market place or put away our crib figures in a hurry (Though personally I am waiting for someone to invent a retractable fish badge before I put one on the back of the car — my driving is not always something to be proud of).

Recently I shared in a mission weekend in an urban parish in this diocese. The church had thrown open its doors to the wider community and schools, uniformed organisations and many others had come along to take part in the events. There was the wonderful atmosphere of a praying church at the heart of the community. During the Harvest Festival service on the Sunday two newish Christians were interviewed; both of them said that they had joined the church because they had come along as a result of a back-to-church Sunday invitation and similar and had been overwhelmed by the open welcome, the practical help and the sustained friendship they had received. I was reminded of another church and someone saying that they had come to faith because the joyful and self-giving way the people looked after the children in the Sunday School had so touched them that they knew God was real.

What I have discovered afresh this month is that the mark of a real Christian community is not so much the lapel badges and crosses we wear as the spontaneous, generous and practical love we show to the world. Christians should not be intimidated into putting away their neck crosses or lapel badges, but in the end these are not the badges that matter. The mark that matters is far more challenging.

Jonathan Gledhill
November 2009

First they came for the Catholics. . .

In explaining his decision to sign the Manhattan Declaration, the not always ecumenical Albert Mohler sounds reminiscent of the late German pastor Martin Niemoller. Mohler cites the current trend of state-mandated immorality having a negative impact on the work of Catholic ministry organizations.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts chose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone. . . .

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

A poem attributed to Niemoller expresses regret over the silence of the German intellectual community during the rise of the Nazis and the purging of enemy groups, one by one.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

God forbid that there come a day when a weary American Christian leader pens a lamentation that begins, "First they came for the Catholics. . ."

'Tis the Season for Barry and His Marauding Band of Barristers

Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is one of those "Reverend" types for whom the title serves no purpose except to legitimize a cause which a little over a generation ago would have been considered spiritually vacuous and legally frivolous. Lynn can be seen frequently as a talking head on many a cable news show. He's not one to wear a clerical collar. He prefers instead the suave, debonair look of the business suit so as to make himself virtually indistinguishable from the army of lawyers his and similar "civil liberties" organizations send forth into every village, town, and hamlet across the country this time every year. This marauding band of barristers is dispatched to look for manger scenes and other public reminders of the religious overtones of an otherwise overly-commercialized Christmas season.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to get around the fact that Lynn is a walking, talking contradiction: an ordained Christian minister who has devoted his life to the elimination of all public displays of the Christian religion. Somewhere in the back of his mind, the good "Reverend" may have convinced himself that his mission in life is to rescue Christianity from the trivialization which inevitably results from its being woven into the fabric of American Civil Religion. But such an attitude, in and of itself, betrays a humanistic worldview which is inherently hostile toward a genuine expression of the faith once for all entrusted to the saints.

Christmas, of course, is more than just manger scenes on a public square. The fact that Lynn and his secularist allies feel "threatened" by the presence of such symbols in front of City Hall bears witness to the larger reality.

A manger scene in front of City Hall is more than a mere holiday decoration. When Mary and Joseph sought lodging in Bethlehem, they could find only a smelly old stable. The Savior of the world had to settle for a cattle stall as a crib. The fact that his birth is now commemorated on the front steps of many a seat of municipal government is testimony that the little Child born in that stable over 2,000 years ago is King of kings and Lord of lords, sovereign even over the supposedly "separate" realm of secular government.

Here is the real reason Barry Lynn and his minions get so out of sorts whenever they see Mary, Joseph, and the Baby taking up residence in some place other than the Bethlehem stable. Jesus' claim to absolute Lordship is the death knell for the phony cause of "separation of church and state." For the same Lord is Lord of the church as well as the state. For both church and state have been ordained by God and serve his purposes, and his purposes alone, in the redemption of his creation. There is no power on earth, least of all Barry Lynn and his bevvy of barristers, who can separate what God has placed together under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Double-Edged Sword of Freedom of Religion

Richard John Neuhaus, in his usual reasoned manner, seeks to calm the unbridled hysteria coming, of late, from some most unlikely sources: conservative political pundits concerned about the elevation of religion to "decisive factor" status in the current election cycle. There seems to be an unnecessary confusion, Neuhaus observes, between the constitutionally established order which gives no special political standing to any candidate based on religion and the practical outworking of the democratic process in which voters may or may not consider a candidate's religion when deciding for whom they will vote. The latter is hardly a threat to the former. Indeed, both are essential to a free society.

The hysteria among the pundits seems to be driven by events unforeseen when they handicapped the presidential race well over a year ago. Faced with the surge of a "second tier" candidate who is resonating with conservative Christian "values voters," they were forced to justify their early support of the less than ideal "front runners" by attempting to portray the upstart as also less than ideal. That strategy has obviously failed, as the pundits have now resorted to the tried and true "religion should not be a factor" argument usually employed by liberal secularists.

Freedom of religion is a double-edged sword. It means, on the one hand, that a serious follower of a quirky religion founded by a teller of tall tales can be a candidate for, and perhaps even be elected to, the highest office in the land. But, on the other hand, it means that some equally serious followers of a more orthodox faith can, through exercising their right of franchise, choose instead a Baptist minister who bears an uncanny resemblance to Gomer Pyle or a balding actor with a flair for homespun wisdom.

Romney Roundup, Right and Left

Mitt Romney gave his much anticipated "religion" speech yesterday. He received mostly good, if not somewhat cautious, reviews from members of his target audience, namely, conservative religious voters concerned about his Mormon faith. Richard John Neuhaus of First Things believes Romney has "significantly advanced his candidacy" with "a powerful speech powerfully delivered." But Christianity Today writers David Neff and Collin Hansen note the Republican presidential candidate dodged some of the deeper historical and doctrinal issues about his faith. So does David Frum of National Review, and quite bluntly.

Among those most pleased with Romney's speech, and most indignant over the fact that he thought it necessary to give it, will be those not-so-social conservatives who jumped onto the bandwagon of "front runners" Romney and Rudolph Giuliani long before the upstart campaign of Mike Huckabee began to gain traction. Now stuck with supporting one or the other less than ideal candidates, they are reduced to ridiculing another candidate who would appear to be a better fit for the social conservative base from which they have long sought to distance themselves.

Left-wingers have responded in typical fashion, demonstrating once again their profound ignorance of the importance of religion in American life. Particularly amusing is their knee-jerk reaction to this particular portion of Romney's speech.

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Comments from media elites have ranged from simply dismissing as incorrect Romney's assertion that "Freedom requires religion" to accusing him of wanting to set up a theocracy. But Romney is merely elaborating on a statement by John Adams, one of America's Founding Fathers. Abridged in the text of the speech, it reads in full:

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

The ever-increasing hostility of liberals to all things religious, and their corresponding embrace of unbridled, socially destructive hedonism, bears out the truth of Adams' observation. Ironically, as a Unitarian, his own religious beliefs would have been as troubling to some Christians in his day as Romney's are today. But there was an underlying respect, if not outright acknowledgement, of the importance of religious faith to the well-being of the nation in the days of its infancy, even among non-believers. Today, even among believers, such recognition no longer exists, to the detriment of our national life.

President Bush: Heretic-in-Chief?

A major political/theological discussion has been sparked by a comment made by President Bush during a recent meeting with ten conservative journalists. Christianity Today has a roundup of the most pertinent contributions to the conversation. Here is Bush's comment in full:

The other debate is whether or not it is a hopeless venture to encourage the spread of liberty. Most of you all around this table are much better historians than I am. And people have said, you know, this is Wilsonian, it's hopelessly idealistic. One, it is idealistic, to this extent: It's idealistic to believe people long to be free. And nothing will change my belief. I come at it many different ways. Really not primarily from a political science perspective, frankly; it's more of a theological perspective. I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.

Presidents are best advised to avoid making theological statements, and Bush would have done well to take such advice before injecting a "theological perspective" into the conversation. But the responses evoked by his comments have been, for the most part, equally lacking in theological depth, probably because most of them have come from persons who, like the president, lack any formal theological training. It is too simplistic, and well outside the jurisdiction of political pundits, to label Bush a "heretic" simply because he espouses a misunderstanding of freedom which is all too common among American Christians. To be sure, it is a mistake rooted in a heresy (something akin to Pelagianism), but in its current form it is little more than a well-intentioned, if not somewhat shortsighted, ideal.

Political freedom is, manifestly, not the kind of freedom for which Christ set us free (cf. Galatians 5.1). The universal advance of democracy is not to be confused with the advance of the kingdom of God. As Gregory Boyd points out in his helpful critique of American evangelicalism, The Myth of a Christian Nation, even the best form of secular government can never be more than another manifestation of the kingdom of the world. It can never be a manifestation of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is perfect freedom. But it is a freedom unknown and, dare I say, unwelcome in even the most liberal of secular democracies.

Presidential rhetoric from George Washington onward has often been laced with Messianic overtones about America's special role in the advancement of freedom throughout the world. President Bush's comments should be understood within this larger historical context. They are the product of over 200 years of a national heritage of intermingling the sacred with the secular. More than telling us about him as a president or about his motivations for pursuing certain policies, they tell us about ourselves. Our leaders are only the sum total of who we are as a nation and a people.

Skeletons in the Closet of "Americans United"

In case you missed it (and if you rely on the mainstream media for most of your information, you probably did), this statement was recently released by a group of evangelical leaders in response to the mean-spirited and bigoted reactions against the Supreme Court decision upholding the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

Statement of Protestant Leaders Against Anti-Catholic Bigotry

As Protestant Christians and as Americans, we condemn the grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry that is now on display as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the constitutionality of the federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion.

We denounce as particularly odious a cartoon published by the Philadelphia Inquirer depicting the five justices who formed the majority in the case wearing Catholic bishops’ mitres. Scarcely less offensive were the comments of law professor, and former University of Chicago Law School Dean, Geoff Stone identifying the Catholic religious affiliation of the justices forming the majority and accusing these distinguished and honorable jurists of imposing their religion rather than faithfully interpreting the Constitution.

We believe it is our particular duty to condemn the bigotry we are now witnessing in view of the history of anti-Catholicism in our nation. It is a stain on the Protestant Christian conscience that at one time many of our people accepted the vile teachings of Paul Blanshard in his book American Freedom and Catholic Power, and supported the anti-Catholic agenda of the group founded by Blanshard and others that now styles itself “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” (formerly known as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

Just as Pope John Paul II acknowledged past injustices committed by Catholics, or committed in the name of Catholicism, against Protestants, Jews, and others and pledged to work against any revival of these injustices, we acknowledge past Protestant prejudices against Catholics and pledge to fight against the anti-Catholic bigotry we are now witnessing. Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them.

Because evil begets evil, we are not surprised that bigotry would emerge among those who have placed themselves in the service of the moral abomination known as partial-birth abortion. For our part, we praise any judge, statesman, or citizen—irrespective of religious affiliation—who steps forward to tell the truth about the injustice of this horrific practice, or to expose the lie that baby-killing is somehow protected by our Constitution.

We call on our fellow Protestant Christians of every denomination—including those denominations that do not share our view that the life of the child in the womb must be honored and protected by law—to join with us in condemning the new anti-Catholicism that has, in the aftermath of the partial-birth abortion decision, reared its ugly head. We hope that no Protestant Christian will bring shame on himself or herself and on the great tradition of Reformed Christianity by participating in this appalling bigotry or remaining mute in the face of it.

We also call on groups that present themselves as enemies of prejudice, including “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” to join with us in condemning the Philadelphia Inquirer cartoon and other manifestations of anti-Catholic bigotry. This is a time of testing for them. Are they selective opponents of prejudice? Do they regard anti-Catholicism as an acceptable form of bigotry? Are they content to see Catholics treated in ways that they would be the first to condemn if the victims were members of other religious traditions or minorities? By responding or failing to respond to our plea to them to join us in condemning the injustice being suffered by our Catholic fellow citizens, we will soon know whether their claim to oppose prejudice and bigotry is an honest one or mere hypocrisy.

Signed//

Gary Bauer
President, American Values

Bishop Wellington Boone
Wellington Boone Ministries

Dick Bott
President, Bott Radio Network

Phil Burress
President, Citizens for Community Values

Dr. Dale Burroughs
President, Biblical Heritage Institute

Alan Chambers
President, Exodus International

Charles W. Colson
Founder, Prison Fellowship Ministries

David Crowe
Director, Restore America

Elizabeth Harmer Dionne
Executive Director, Legacy Law Foundation

Mark L. Earley
President, Prison Fellowship Ministries

Diane Gramley
President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania

Colin A. Hanna
President, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.

Cathi Herrod
President, The Center for Arizona Policy

Dr. John A. Huffman
Pastor, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, California

Dr. Kenneth Hutcherson
Pastor, Antioch Bible Church, Antioch, Washington

Phillip L. Jauregui
President, Judicial Action Group

Warren Kelley, President
Point of View Radio Ministries

Rod D. Martin, J.D.
Founder and Chairman, TheVanguard.Org

Dean Nelson
Executive Director, Network of Politically Active Christians

Dr. Frank S. Page
President, Southern Baptist Convention

Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Ron Shuping
Exec. VP of Programming, The Inspiration Networks

John Stemberger
President & General Counsel, Florida Family Policy Council

Jim Tonkowich
President, Institute for Religion and Democracy

Rick Warren
Pastor, Saddleback Church, Lake Forest, California

Dr. Hayes Wicker
Pastor, First Baptist Church Naples, Naples, Florida

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman, American Family Association

Dr. Frank Wright
President & CEO, National Religious Broadcasters

Wendy Wright
President, Concerned Women for America

You will note the reference to the organization originally known as "Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State," now masquerading as "Americans United for Separation of Church and State." No doubt the erudite "Reverend" Barry Lynn and his bevy of barristers who are now celebrating "60 Years of Freedom" would like to keep the dark origins of their organization hidden. There is no mention of Paul Blanshard in the currently official history of the organization. Only one paragraph is devoted to the historical circumstances surrounding its founding.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State was founded in 1947 by a broad coalition of religious, educational and civic leaders. At that time, proposals were pending in the U.S. Congress to extend government aid to private religious schools. Many Americans opposed this idea, insisting that government support for religious education would violate church-state separation. The decision was made to form a national organization to promote this point of view and defend the separation principle.

Robert P. George provides a little more historical context while expressing appreciation to his evangelical cohorts. It is a history that belies this dubious claim:

Americans United celebrates the rich religious and philosophical diversity of the United States and seeks a nation where all people may peacefully pursue the truth as their consciences dictate.

"Americans United" has been a darling of the liberal media for years. It is high time it had the skeletons in its historical closet exposed to the light of truth.