Americans United and Moral Consistency

By Broadside Opinion Columnist Michael Gryboski

As long as there has been a ratified U.S. Constitution, there have been people interpreting it. Changes in the document’s interpretations have occurred over time. Religious freedom and the extent of government and ecclesiastical entanglement is an example of interpretational change. Enter the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a group advocating a strict separation between religion and government. Founded in 1947, as Supreme Court decisions were starting to be handed down against Christian expression on government property, Americans United wants religion completely segregated from government and feels activities of politicians should in no way involve the sanctuary. Or do they? Americans United may proclaim religious neutrality for politics, but their actions and most notably inactions, have shown they hold a strong double standard.

On their website, the group denounces what they call “church electioneering,” stating “It is not the job of religious leaders to tell people which candidates to vote for or not vote for.” Churches they warn, if not threaten, with removal of tax-exempt status include sanctuaries that endorse conservative Republicans. Although they oppose these churches and the campaigns they are affiliated with, no mention of the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential campaigns have appeared in their action alerts. On several occasions, both Clinton and Obama have reached out to black churches, especially during the South Carolina primary. Both campaigns produced lists of churches supporting their political endeavors. Does Americans United condemn this behavior? One testimony that somehow slipped their persistent eyes was Columbia, South Carolina’s St. Luke Baptist Church, in which one congregant described how clergy there “gave us some pointers on some of the things that Hillary was looking to do for the African American community.” Afterwards, the congregant declared, “I left the meeting sold on Hillary Clinton.” Is this not church electioneering? Americans United is amazingly silent on the several testimonials fitting this description.

Along with a host of other secularist minded partisans, Americans United has expressed a deep concern over the religious moral code of former Arkansas Gov. Michael Huckabee. A Protestant minister with socially conservative leanings, Americans United expresses caution over this Republican candidate, spreading the word that a “shadowy collection of Religious Right fat cats appears to be working behind the scenes to encourage churches to promote the presidential candidacy of Mike Huckabee.”

In all fairness, it would appear having a clergyman hold a secular office would put the precious wall between church and state at risk; so why didn’t they voice those complaints when Rev. Al Sharpton was running for president? Huckabee has shown in Arkansas that he can avoid public policy that would benefit only his religious persuasion, whereas Sharpton, having yet to hold office, has not. But who is the greater concern? The conservative Republican, of course. It’s almost as though Americans United has no ability to comprehend non-Christians violating our freedom of religion. This is not far from the truth.

While Americans United denounces Christian prayers opening government sessions, not one of their members expressed concern when a House of Representatives session was opened with a Hindu prayer. Indeed, when the conservative Family Research Council made a press release essentially doing the job Americans United claims to do, Barry Lynn of Americans United referred to the FRC’s action as something that “reeks of religious bigotry.” Their tolerance of Hindu prayers opening government sessions contradicts what they profess on the “Invocation Discrimination” part of their website, referring to prayers during government sessions as “a clearly improper entanglement between religion and government.” Americans United is showing favoritism towards some religious sects. Deciding that some sects are acceptable shows a disgrace towards genuine American secularism. Deciding that other sects they hold political grudges against cannot indulge in similar treatment shows a disgrace towards religious tolerance.

In example after example, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State prove they want established religion after all, so long as it agrees with their agenda. Many could say their ideological enemies on the right are no better, but if Americans United is such a benevolent civil libertarian organization, shouldn’t they stand above partisan activities and denounce all religious activities connected to government? If not, then their interpretation of the freedom of religion, as found in the First Amendment, is a poor one, for it shows favoritism of some sects over others, which is the opposite of what was desired by that document’s writers. It is that very document which gives Americans United the freedom to be moral hypocrites.