The United States is facing some of the toughest problems of its 200 years of existence. We have terrorist desiring to destroy us. Illegal people coming across our borders and possibly terrorist using this avenue to come into our country. Within our hemisphere we have people that don't have enought to eat. We have drug problems with our young. Our families are falling apart. What does the BJC worry about? The Forsyth County Board of Commissioners having a prayer to open their meetings. This is big business. If they pray at the Board of Commissioners meeting it could destroy our nation.

Does anyone ever wonder why people are cynical with the church? Why does anyone contribute to this organization? Money could be better spent buying dog food for stray dogs!

If the NC commissioner's prayers were primarily Muslim prayers ... or Mormon prayers ... or Hindu prayers ... how would you react to the story?

The Baptist Joint Committee is upholding our historic Baptist opposition to government-sanctioned/sponsored religion. For this we should all be proud of them, and supportive of them.

ConcernedAmerican, are you even familiar with the mission of the BJC? The BJC is a 70 year-old organization concerned exclusively with religious liberty. Immigration reform, fighting terrorism, drug problems and other family issues are beyond the scope of the BJC.

For what it's worth, the BJC is a rather popular organization in Baptist life, an organization that serves fourteen different Baptist bodies.

I think you mentioned once that you are from Central Texas? Where are you located? Because in my part of Central Texas - McLennan County (Waco) - there has been a big prayer-related debate/controversy going on for the past couple of months.

The McLennan County Board of Commissioners recently decided - against advice of counsel - to open their sessions up with a prayer then a pledge. This proposal and later decision came just several weeks after the Board decided to stream their meetings online. If you're interested, I've written about this debate on my website, www.thebigdaddyweave.com

Maybe religious liberty issues are irrelevant to you. Whatever. But they are relevant enough in my part of Central Texas that the local paper has devoted at least five front-page articles to this controversy over the past two months. And the Forsyth County case should be of concern to those who do not wish to see their government advance religion via a "nonsectarian" prayer policy that produces sectarian results.

Apropos that this story appears just above the Westboro Baptist Church article, I suppose. Both groups undermine the sanctity of freedom of speech.

Yes, the fear of terrorism, starvation and the destruction of community and family is palpable. It does not appear that this is the purpose of the BJC. Look to committees, groups and organisations whose purpose is to deal with these specific concerns. Not everyone can be a hand or foot. So, it is with groups, committees and organisations. Otherwise, we may wind up being all thumbs.

Bruce says: If the NC commissioner's prayers were primarily Muslim prayers ... or Mormon prayers ... or Hindu prayers ... how would you react to the story?

Reply: No, I have been around Muslims and Mormons for the last 29 years. I am not offended by their prayer. Have not been around Hindu's yet. Participated with a Muslim Imam in Baghdad for a memorial ceremony honoring a muslim and a Christian. It doesn't bother me. Maybe it does some.

Bruce says: The Baptist Joint Committee is upholding our historic Baptist opposition to government-sanctioned/sponsored religion. For this we should all be proud of them, and supportive of them

Reply: Perhaps. On another post someone said that James Dunn led an organization of Baptist Pastors in support of Jimmy Carter's 1976 election campaign. I have never heard of that. Do you know if there is any truth to that? On the face of it I would doubt it but I really don't know.

Big Daddy Weave: ConcernedAmerican, are you even familiar with the mission of the BJC? The BJC is a 70 year-old organization concerned exclusively with religious liberty. Immigration reform, fighting terrorism, drug problems and other family issues are beyond the scope of the BJC.

Reply: yes. Probably even while you were in diapers.


Big Daddy Weave says: I think you mentioned once that you are from Central Texas?

reply: Yes in Bell County. I am not from here as most in Bell County are not. I am from Oklahoma. I have lived in Texas on four occassions now. I will check out your website. These issues are important. I just thought this is a trivial one at the moment.

I am still waiting to be invited to your church in Waco.

Mr. Allen wrote:

"The BJC, which represents 15 national and regional Baptist groups on matters related to religious liberty and the separation of church and state, reminded the court of a 1983 Supreme Court decision, Marsh v. Chambers, which found 'legislative prayers' constitutional only if they are non-sectarian and do not favor one religion over another."

The constitution does not forbid the establishment of one religion above another. It forbids the establishment of any religion, period.

Therefore, the man who takes the position that a "sectarian prayer" at a governmental meeting violates the first amendment, to be consistent and logical, must take the position that all prayer at a government meeting violates the first amendment, since all prayer is intrinsically religious.

The BJC is illogical and inconsistent. To be logical and consistent they would have to come out against all prayer at government meetings. I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Most people have enough sense to know that a man who is invited to pray at a government meeting does not represent anyone but himself. If a man is invited to say a prayer, he ought to say a sincere prayer of his real belief. If a man doesn't like it he can absent himself, not say amen, look around with disdain for the prayer or whatever.

To ask a man to pray and then tell him how he must pray is a clear violation of his constitutional right to the exercise of his religious belief.

If I went to Turkey I would expect to hear Muslim prayers at their government meetings. If I went to England I would expect to hear Anglican prayers and Catholic prayers in Italy. If I went to Minnesota I'd expect to hear Lutheran prayers and if I went to Mississippi I would expect to hear Baptist, Methodist or maybe Pentecostal prayers. I would not be the least offended by such prayers nor would I have the least respect for the ones not offered in the name of Christ. Nor would I be offended it no prayer was offered.

But if I went to Communist China I wouldn't expect to hear any prayers at all at government meetings. Maybe that is where this country is headed because some people are so sensitive they can't sit through a bogus prayer without getting in a snit.

For the record, governmental bodies all across this blessed country, from city council meetings to Congress itself, have allowed prayers offered up in the name of Jesus from the beginning, not because such prayers were established by the government, but because the people who prayed were free to pray their true beliefs. And yet this remains the freest country in the world with regard to religious and all other liberties. So the BJC really shouldn't holler "the sky is falling" just because someone was allowed to say a prayer in Jesus name at a county commissioners meeting.

Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

My question was: Would you be offended by government-sanctioned/sponsored Muslim or Mormon or Hindu (or even Wiccan for that matter) prayers? Maybe you would not. But I do not want government proscribing/forcing/enforcing/coercing/dictating any religion for me or my community or my nation. This is the message of Baptists for 400 years.

As to James Dunn supporting Jimmy Carter when he ran for president, I do not know. For the record, the historic Baptist position is that Baptists as individuals are free to politic as they please (on issues of politics, morality, ethics, whatever), but using the levers of government to force/enforce/coerce/mandate religious beliefs is another matter altogether. Also, today, any church can choose to renounce preferential tax treatment and therefore be free to politic from the pulpit.

I would object to any government sanctioned prayer, including a Baptist prayer. Baptists don't need government sanction for their prayers. Nor does our government need to sanction anyone's prayers.

I would not, however, object to a Baptist or anyone else being invited to give a prayer of their own choosing at a governmental meeting. If a Muslim was invited to give a prayer, I would certainly despise the prayer, but I would not object to it on constitutional grounds because the constitution grants the same rights to Muslims as to anyone else.

For the record, while Baptists have historically upheld separation of church and state, they have not historically had any problem with prayers being said at government meetings. That is the cant of the BJC and their ilk which has no historical precedent among Baptists of the former generation that I know anything about.

Since you are a "professional historian" maybe you could provide us with this bit of information: when is the first instance on record of a Baptist opposing to prayers being said in Jesus' name at a government meeting? I don't know for certain, but my guess would be that it was probably sometime after WWII and probably in the 1970s or later.


Mark Osgatharp
Wynne, Arkansas

Beginning about 1609, Baptists opposed "Christian" colonial government leaders who prayed to Jesus in the halls of government and then beat and jailed other Christians who preached Jesus' name in public or the pulpit (they also opposed "Christian" government leaders who may not have done the actual beating and jailing, but nonetheless proclaimed their version of Jesus from statehouses).

"Christian" colonial government leaders praying in Jesus name continued beating and jailing Baptists who preached Jesus' name into the Revolutionary war years. And when the beatings and jailings finally stopped, as the theocracies gave way to secular government ... Baptists continued to insist the marriage of religion and government was an unholy alliance.

Isaac Backus said, "Religious matters are to be separated from the jurisdiction of the state, not because they are beneath the interests of the state but, quite to the contrary, because they are too high and holy and thus are beyond the competence of the state." (An Appeal to the Public For Religious Liberty). John Leland had much to say, of which this is but little. Here's the full Leland text, which is probably way to liberal, secular and biblical for your tastes.

Bruce says: My question was: Would you be offended by government-sanctioned/sponsored Muslim or Mormon or Hindu (or even Wiccan for that matter) prayers?

Reply: Of course I don't want the government mandating prayers.

What do you think the BJC should do about the Obama Administration telling NASA to help Muslims and Muslim Nations feel good about their past accomplishments? Should the BJC take them to court?

Bruce says: For the record, the historic Baptist position is that Baptists as individuals are free to politic as they please (on issues of politics, morality, ethics, whatever), but using the levers of government to force/enforce/coerce/mandate religious beliefs is another matter altogether.

Reply: I agree as individuals we are free to do as we please. I don't know if James Dunn did as the person posting said. (I doubt it but I could be wrong). However, in the postion that he held at the time, it would be perceived rightly or wrongly that he was speaking for the BJC. Therefore, it would be best that he not campaign for a candidate. It is like in the Army we are able to have political signs in our yards but not speak out for a candidate in uniform. That is best.

Bruce says: Also, today, any church can choose to renounce preferential tax treatment and therefore be free to politic from the pulpit.

Reply: I don't think a church should politic for any candidate from the pulpit. Issues like abortion etc. But not candidates. I don't think churches should have a tax-exempt status. For the Government to grant one is to have a law respecting an establishment of religion. I think you would agree on that. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Government should not have any power over a church. The tax-exempt status did not begin until the 1950s. It is and was a bad law.

To address your NASA comment first, it appears that the NASA administrator incorrectly spoke for the administration (although the statement itself was about affirming Muslim nations' contributions to science and engineering, and had nothing to do with religion).

As to churches' tax exempt status, we do agree on this matter (as we do regarding the belief that regardless, endorsement of political candidates from the pulpit is inappropriate). But this view we share is itself an outlier view today, I would say. Few pastors or churches have any desire to give up their tax breaks, and of course, I understand why.

While colonial theocratic governments did in some cases grant tax-exempt status to established churches, and after the colonial era many state and local governments continued tax-exempt status ... in 1913 the federal government granted churches exemption from the federal tax code. (See this overview.)

What is really interesting today is that more and more governments (local, county and state levels) are considering revoking tax-exemptions for religious organizations. In light of fiscal problems at the state level and down, I expect calls for churches to contribute to tax coffers will only grow.

"As to James Dunn supporting Jimmy Carter when he ran for president, I do not know."

He most certainly did. He worked on Carter's reelection campaign in 1980. He defended his actions on grounds that being a Christian does not mean being a "political eunuch." However, he seemed to feel quite the opposite about groups like the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition.

"As to churches' tax exempt status, we do agree on this matter (as we do regarding the belief that regardless, endorsement of political candidates from the pulpit is inappropriate)."

Then why hasn't the IRS gone after Jeremiah Wright and other pastors who openly endorsed Barack Obama? When Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton ran for president, they openly campaigned in churches. Why did the BJCPA look the other way?

Ken says: He most certainly did. He worked on Carter's reelection campaign in 1980. He defended his actions on grounds that being a Christian does not mean being a "political eunuch."

Reply: Thanks Ken. Do you know of any sources that I can go to and read about this?

Bruce says: To address your NASA comment first, it appears that the NASA administrator incorrectly spoke for the administration (although the statement itself was about affirming Muslim nations' contributions to science and engineering, and had nothing to do with religion).

Reply: I am not so sure he incorrectly spoke for the administration. In Muslim nations government and religion are tied together. It has everything to do with their religion. This move is far more dangerous to religious liberty than the prayer at the Forsyth County Board of Commissioners. The BJC should say something about this. They should take a stand against this.

Bruce says: What is really interesting today is that more and more governments (local, county and state levels) are considering revoking tax-exemptions for religious organizations. In light of fiscal problems at the state level and down, I expect calls for churches to contribute to tax coffers will only grow.

Reply: In a scenaio like that how would you stand for groups like the BJCPA, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Associated Baptist Press being taxed? Can you imagine how that would impact the SBC and the CBF. The SBC is hurting. For the CBF this would most likely take them under.

What state and local governments are considering this action?

The BJC is admittedly a US organization in both emphasis and scope, although they sometimes speak out against theocracies (and theocratic tendencies and government-promoted/sponsored religion) in general (such as here).

South Carolina and a variety of local governments recently or are now discussing revoking tax exempt status of churches, believing churches should contribute to community via taxes. At least one congregation in Alabama (First Baptist Auburn) already voluntarily pays taxes to help support the local school district.

Thanks for the reply.

Bruce says: South Carolina and a variety of local governments recently or are now discussing revoking tax exempt status of churches,. . . . .

Reply: Interesting. Who Publishes the site you referred me to?

Question: In a scenaio like that how would you stand for groups like the BJCPA, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Associated Baptist Press being taxed?

Again thanks for the reply.

It's interesting that James Dunn has been mentioned several times here as Brent Walker has served as the BJC's Executive-Director since 1999.

My M.A. thesis was on Dr. Dunn and I am the author of a forthcoming book on James Dunn and soul freedom.

I don't think it was a secret that Dunn - like many Baptists (especially in 76) - was a supporter of Jimmy Carter. I have never come across the claim repeated by Concerned American. By the way, James Dunn did not join the BJC until AFTER Reagan defeated Carter.

Concerned American & others should check out Politics: A Guidebook for Christians authored by Dunn. In that book published in 1970 by the CLC, Dunn details how individual Christians and churches should be involved in the political arena. He also describes ways that religion and politics should not mix.

Ken correctly points out that Dunn worked on the reelection campaign - although not in his capacity as director of the CLC. At the time of the 1980 election, Dunn had completed his directorship and was waiting to begin his new post in Washington with the BJC.

Dunn never argued that politically conservative Christians should not be involved in politics via the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition or any other organization. His critique of the Christian Right was how they chose to be involved: the tactics used, the rhetoric, the way the Bible was used to divide, etc.

Big Daddy Says: I have never come across the claim repeated by Concerned American.

Reply: If you will read my post you would see that I asked questions and did not make any claims. Since you did take time to read my post I will paste them here for you.

Post on July 12: This was a question to Bruce Gourley.

On another post someone said that James Dunn led an organization of Baptist Pastors in support of Jimmy Carter's 1976 election campaign. I have never heard of that. Do you know if there is any truth to that? On the face of it I would doubt it but I really don't know.

Post on July 13: This was in response to a post by Bruce Gourley. I did not know the timeline of when he worked at the CLC and BJC.

I don't know if James Dunn did as the person posting said. (I doubt it but I could be wrong). However, in the position that he held at the time, it would be perceived rightly or wrongly that he
was speaking for the BJC.

Post on July 13: This was in response to Ken’s post. He stated that he worked on the 1980 campaign. Again it was a question.

Thanks Ken. Do you know of any sources that I can go to and read about this?

There is no claim to anything. In fact I stated twice that I doubted the claim from the earlier post.

Big Daddy Weave says: Dunn never argued that politically conservative Christians should not be involved in politics via the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition or any other organization. His critique of the Christian Right was how they chose to be involved: the tactics used, the rhetoric, the way the Bible was used to divide, etc.

Reply: What he argued or did not argue was not the issue. Read all of a post before you comment.

The problem with the left is they are as guilty of the things you claim about the right. Maybe more so.

I stated that you repeated the claim. You did. You also asserted that the claim might not be true. I didn't mention that. Whatever. Nonetheless, you threw the rumor out there for all to read. My time is probably better spent doing something other than have a back-and-forth with an anonymous individual who makes uninformed, disparaging comments about a great organization that I spent a semester working for after college graduation.

Weave says: I didn't mention that. Whatever.

Reply: Are you a teenager girl? Whatever!

I will be glad to come to Waco and discuss it with you. Name the place and time. I will buy your meal.

Weave says: My time is probably better spent doing something other than have a back-and-forth with an anonymous individual who makes uninformed, disparaging comments about a great organization that I spent a semester working for after college graduation.

Reply: May I suggest an English class.

Suggesting an English class, eh? This coming from the guy who wrote "teenager girl"

As an FYI, I don't meet or eat with anonymous internet folk...

Well big daddy mine was a typing error. What was your post? I am not going to put my email address out on this post. You can get my email address and name from Bruce Gourley. I think Buzzard Billy's place is very nice. But you can name the place.

"Ken correctly points out that Dunn worked on [Carter's] reelection campaign - although not in his capacity as director of the CLC. At the time of the 1980 election, Dunn had completed his directorship and was waiting to begin his new post in Washington with the BJC."

As I recall, Dunn went directly from his position as director of the Texas CLC to the BJCPA. Are you saying he was unemployed while he worked on Carter's campaign? I find that difficult to believe.

"Dunn never argued that politically conservative Christians should not be involved in politics via the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition or any other organization."

He falsely accused them of trying to establish a "civil religion", and he of violating the sacred "wall of separation." It's strange how that wall always seems to disappear when liberals speak out on issues, but suddenly reappears when conservatives want to speak out.

"His critique of the Christian Right was how they chose to be involved: the tactics used, the rhetoric, the way the Bible was used to divide, etc."

Yet he said nothing when liberal churches used the same tactics. In fact, he often used such tactics himself.

Not unemployed; Dunn was on sabbatical and vacation in those last months before moving to DC.

Your assertions misrepresent Dunn's views. Odd that you insist Dunn thought conservatives should not speak out. Ever heard of the Equal Access Act? Religious Freedom Restoration Act? Dunn led the BJC to work with numerous conservative groups to pass those pieces of legislation.

He partnered with W.A. Criswell to raise the welfare ceiling and coalitioned with conservative Christian groups to fight gambling and for juvenile justice reform.

But yea, he wasn't a fan of the Reagan Prayer Amendment - an amendment that even the Reagan Administration conceded would require the state to write the prayers to be delivered in public school classrooms. So he took aim at the Christian Right for their efforts to weaken church-state separation. On other church-state issues such as diplomatic recognition of the Vatican, Dunn stood with conservatives.

Again, his beef was not that conservatives were involved in politics but with the type of politics that they often promoted, their agenda, and their efforts to limit religious liberty.

If you have specific examples to show inconsistencies, let's discuss. Hard to discuss assertions not based on anything specific.

"But yea, he wasn't a fan of the Reagan Prayer Amendment -"

True.

"...an amendment that even the Reagan Administration conceded would require the state to write the prayers to be delivered in public school classrooms."

Can you give me any documentation - other than Dunn's own claims - where the Reagan Administration made such a concession?

"So he took aim at the Christian Right for their efforts to weaken church-state separation."

I'd be interested in knowing how you define "separation of church and state." I've asked Bruce McGourley that question many times, and he keeps dodging it.

"If you have specific examples to show inconsistencies, let's discuss."

That's just it. Did Dunn go after liberal churches for their political entanglements? Did he do it with the same vitriol with which he went after conservatives? I can't cite any examples of him doing so. Can you?

Under Reagan's proposal, who do you think would have written the prayer? Think the state was going to give that task to the first-grader?

My definition of "separation of church and state" is very similar to that used by organizations such as the BJC and Texas CLC and church-state scholars such as Derek Davis and Douglas Laycock. Davis and Laycock articulate that concept much better than I can in a quick comment. Carl Esbeck's category of "pluralistic separationist" - see his popular typography from the 80s - does a good job of describing where most Baptist separationists including myself fall in the church-state spectrum

My understanding of church-state separation is rooted in the concept of neutrality, a concept articulated by Supreme Court Justices Charles Evans Hughes and Hugo Black (both Baptist laymen) that can be traced back to the political though of Roger Williams and his principle of impartiality. Obviously, one key component of neutrality is the idea that government must not advance religion. Public monies should not be used to further sectarian goals. At the same time, government must not inhibit the free exercise of religion. This requires, in some cases, that the government take steps to accommodate people of faith. The Equal Access Act does just that.

"liberal churches for their political entanglements"

Can you provide a specific example? What liberal church or churches are you referring to?

"My understanding of church-state separation is rooted in the concept of neutrality"

Prohibition of public prayer is hardly neutrality.

"Can you provide a specific example? What liberal church or churches are you referring to?"

Watch during any election year. In the 2004 election, John Kerry openly campaigned in churches. Where was the BJC? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton regularly use their church affiliations to promote political causes. Have you listened to Jeremiah Wright? He all but endorsed Obama from his own pulpit. The BJC has raked conservative churches over the coals for doing much less. Why the double standard?

"Under Reagan's proposal, who do you think would have written the prayer? Think the state was going to give that task to the first-grader?"

Here is what you said:

"...even the Reagan Administration conceded [that the proposed Prayer Amendment] would require the state to write the prayers to be delivered in public school classrooms."

My question was, can you give me any documentation - other than Dunn's own claims - where the Reagan Administration made such a concession?

"Again, [Dunn's] beef was not that conservatives were involved in politics but with the type of politics that they often promoted, their agenda, and their efforts to limit religious liberty."

Maybe you can give me some specifics? How did conservatives try to "limit religious liberty"?

As for your talk of "neutrality", is it "neutral" for professors in state universities to assail religious beliefs in their classrooms? Don't tell me it doesn't happen; I saw it plenty of times when I was a student at a state university. They called it "academic freedom." Yet if a professor at that same school tried to advance a religious viewpoint, that was called "a violation of separation of church and state". Don't tell me that's not a double standard.

Ken,

Can you give me an example of unconstitutional liberal politicking? Dunn retired in 1999. John Kerry and Jeremiah Wright are absolutely irrelevant.

The BJC does speak out against churches that endorse candidates from the pulpit - those on the left and right. Maybe you should visit their website and read their past issues of Report from the Capital. Your assertions are uninformed.

Public prayer has not been prohibited; government-sponsored prayer in public schools has...

Conservatives tried to limit religious liberty with various different constitutional amendment proposals. The Reagan Prayer Amendment was just 1 of over 200 such proposals that the BJC has had to deal with from the 1960s through the 1990s, attempts to fund parochial and private religious schools via voucher programs, Charitable Choice, etc.

"Can you give me an example of unconstitutional liberal politicking?"

I didn't say politicking of any kind was unconstitutional. Liberal groups like the BJC always raise howls of protest when any conservative church does something that they see as "excessive politicking." Yet they look the other way when liberal churches do the same kind of politicking. My issue is not whether such politicking is unconstitutional, but why liberals have such an obvious double standard in this area.

"Dunn retired in 1999."

Okay, so where was he when liberal churches openly endorsed Bill Clinton? As I recall, Dunn himself called Clinton "a real Baptist." If Reagan had done one-tenth of the things Clinton did, Dunn would have demanded his impeachment.

"John Kerry and Jeremiah Wright are absolutely irrelevant."

Not so. Why did the BJC not speak out against their politicking? Can you show me where they did speak out? If they didn't, then my question remains: why the double standard?

"The BJC does speak out against churches that endorse candidates from the pulpit - those on the left and right."

Did they speak out against Jeremiah Wright, or the churches that endorsed John Kerry? You claimed these cases were "irrelevant."

"Public prayer has not been prohibited; government-sponsored prayer in public schools has..."

But government-sponsored ridicule of one's religious beliefs is still allowed. Again, why the double standard?

"Conservatives tried to limit religious liberty with various different constitutional amendment proposals."

That's just your opinion. Many people feel these amendments would have enhanced religious liberty. I fail to see how regulation of public prayer does anything but limit religious liberty.