Image: Ben McLeod

On Sunday, more than 500 conservative Christian pastors around the country vowed to break the law by endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. Though the practice has been illegal since 1954, endorsing churches have faced almost no consequences for their actions because the IRS has been hamstrung by “complex” rules.

Minnesota churches have played a high-profile role in the new movement to flout the law, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, though this Sunday, the movement was underrepresented in the state.

Several Minnesota pastors have been the target of complaints to the IRS over their politicking from the pulpit, yet all have emerged without penalty, some getting a letter from the IRS reminding them of the prohibition on endorsing candidates and others receiving nothing at all.

As Minnesota Pastor Brad Brandon noted on his radio program last Friday, since his October 2010 endorsements of a slate of Republican candidates including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, he hasn’t received a thing.

“You’d have to be living under rock if you didn’t know back in October of 2010, I chose to endorse candidates form behind my pulpit,” Brandon said. “Everywhere I go people ask me, ‘What happened?’”

“Are you ready for what happened? I’m going to explain to you what happened.” Brandon played a few seconds dead radio air. “That’s exactly what happened. Nothing happened.”

“So far the IRS has done absolutely nothing. What does that prove? That this is nothing more than an intimidation factor by the goverment to try to control the pulpit, to control the church.”

He added, “They know that if this were ever to go to the Supreme Court it would be shot down.”

The Minnesota Independent first reported on Brandon’s endorsements in 2010 and that reporting generated a complaint to the IRS by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

As Brandon notes, the complaint appears to have gone nowhere.

Rob Boston of Americans United told the Minnesota Independent that the reason why the IRS hasn’t been effectively enforcing the law is “complex.”

“A few years ago, the IRS moved to audit a church in Minnesota that had endorsed Michele Bachmann,” he said. “The church sued, claiming that the IRS had not followed its own procedures for auditing churches. The church won the case when a federal court ruled that the IRS official who approved the audit was not of sufficient rank.”

The Minnesota Independent’s reporting on Pastor Mac Hammond’s endorsement of Bachmann, as well as a financial set-up within the church that came under heavy scrutiny, generated that IRS investigation back in 2007. The IRS lost its case because the law limits how the agency can investigate churches and it had not followed its own rules.

“Subsequently, the IRS announced that it would revise its policies for church audits,” Boston said. “As far as we know, this process is ongoing. So, if there has been a pause in enforcement, it’s just that – a temporary pause.”

Even if the IRS isn’t currently going after churches that break tax laws, it still advises churches not to break the law.

“The IRS website continues to contain material warning churches (and other non-profits) against partisan politicking, and no change in policy has been announced,” Boston said.

Other Minnesota churches continue to break the law every year and skate by with little to no consequences. Warroad Christian Church in northern Minnesota has been endorsing Republicans over the last few years.

The IRS dropped its investigation of that church after the Hammond court decision.

The church decided to endorse again this year as part of a broader movement called Pulpit Freedom Sunday. The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian legal group, encourages churches to endorse from the pulpit each October. This year the movement picked up 539 churches around the country.

In Minnesota, five churches participated in Pulpit Sunday. Aside from Warroad, Faith Baptist Church in Brainerd, Hill City Baptist in Hill City, Landmark Baptist Church in Red Wing and South Troy Wesleyan Church in Zumbro Falls also announced they were endorsing candidates.

Mac and Lynne Hammond; Source: LWCC.org

Pastor Mac Hammond announced Sunday that he has been asked to join Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign as the chairman of her national Faith and Family Council. Hammond made headlines after endorsing Bachmann’s congressional bid from the pulpit in 2006, spurring a complaint to the IRS.

“Michele Bachmann has considered me her pastor for a while,” Hammond said of Bachmann during his Sunday sermon. “Her concern has to do with what her political opposition might do with us as a ministry because the political opposition she faces is very poisonous, no doubt about it.”

Bachmann spoke at Hammond’s church in 2006, calling herself a “fool for Christ.”

“Everybody needs a pastor and she has asked me to be the chairman of her National Faith and Family Council…actually that’s not a settled fact yet because of the possible legal ramifications of my becoming a part of her political campaign staff,” he said. “But whatever the case may be, Lynne and I are going to travel with her to different states that she will be campaigning in.”

He said he traveled with Bachmann to Tennessee to introduce her at a campaign event.

“I got an opportunity to talk about the vital importance of the church rising up and taking this nation back,” he said. ”She is a sister in the Lord that is as committed to his word as any of you in here are.”

Hammond said he wouldn’t be using church resources or endorse her from the pulpit.

In 2006, the Minnesota Independent first reported about Hammond endorsing Bachmann from the pulpit. That reporting generated a complaint to the IRS and an informant inside the church sent MnIndy documents outlining potentially illegal financial arrangements.

The IRS investigated and Hammond’s Living Word Christian Center sued arguing that due to IRS restructuring, the agency could not appropriately investigate the church. A judge ruled in LWCC’s favor and the IRS began a process to restructure itself in order to comply with the law.

On Sunday, Hammond said that churches should be able to endorse candidates and praised efforts by conservative Christian groups to have rules barring politicking overturned.

“For centuries, politicking was done in the local church,” he said. “And pastors and ministers had the responsibility of illuminating which candidates were most closely aligned with God’s word.”

On Tuesday, Minnesota Senators debated whether taxpayer funds should be used to pay for private religious school tuition as part of an omnibus tax bill. Republicans hope the proposal, which is modeled after one in Arizona and has been dubbed a “backdoor voucher” system by some, will pass constitutional muster. The U.S. Supreme Court released a decision on Arizona’s system on Monday that could boost state Republicans’ hopes, but DFLers say regardless of the measure’s constitutionality it represents the GOP’s ultimate goal of “dismantling” public education altogether.

Sen. Katie Sieben, DFL-Newport, introduced an amendment to the tax bill that would delete a program that allows large tax breaks for low-income families to be used for private school tuition.

“At a time that our school districts are cutting back, we need put our money into our public schools instead of putting taxpayer money into private and religious schools,” she said. (The GOP’s education budget cuts education funding in Minneapolis publich schools by $415 per student, while per-student funds would to decrease by $395 in St. Paul and $132 in Duluth.)

The program would cost $10.7 million in the next biennium. “We should be spending these precious taxpayer dollars on our public schools,” she added.

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said, “I would hope that you would give our poorer families an opportunity to climb out [of poverty] and that you resist voting for the Sieben amendment.”

As the Minnesota Independent reported when a voucher bill was first introduced this session, taxpayer funding for religious schools in Minnesota is expressly prohibited in the Minnesota Constitution, even if the federal government has allowed it in some circumstances.

The new proposal in the tax bill takes out the voucher system and creates a tax credit.

Currently, Minnesota law allows for families to take a tax break for certain private school expenses — except for tuition. And that stood up to a Minnesota Supreme Court challenge in the mid-1990s. The current bill would change that tax break to included tuition as well as other related expenses, an issue the court has not yet taken up. But the bill stops short of a voucher system which would make direct payments to private schools.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, said that would present a problem. “First of all, it’s a substantial expansion of the taxpayer subsidy for private schools. Tuition is the motherload of costs,” he said, adding that many taxpayers would have a problem subsidizing another taxpayer’s decision to put their children in private schools.

“There’s a second consideration here,” said Latz. “This would constitute taxpayer funding for specific religious purposes because the vast majority of private schools are religious in nature.”

Latz said that current law allows a tax break for non-tuition expenses like textbooks or supplies because they don’t go to religious instruction. The law specifies that those expenses pay for school needs that are similar to the coursework that would be found in a public school.

Using tax credits to pay tuition at a religious school, Latz said, “That’s taxpayer dollars specifically advancing religion.”

Sen. Benjamin Kruse, R-Brooklyn Park, disagreed with Latz’s constitutional concerns.

“To the possible constitutional agreement here, we just saw yesterday in Arizona, the Supreme Court upheld a very, very similar piece of legislation so I think we are heading in the right direction with this,” he said.

That case at the Supreme Court was decided on Monday in a split 5-4 decision. The court ruled that taxpayers have no legal recourse when tax credits, as opposed to vouchers, are used to fund religious schools. Separation of church and state watchdog groups have called the tax credit strategy a “backdoor voucher program.”

“If government officials set up a program where contributions to these religious institutions are offset by a 100 percent tax credit, a taxpayer has no right to challenge that funding in court, despite the fact that it has the same result: tax dollars are going to fund religion,” Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said of the decision.

As Kruse noted, the Minnesota proposal is based on the Arizona system.

He said that the program should be passed into law. “We should keep that choice, keep those dollars in the hands of the most impoverished. It is so important to help these children get a better education, have a fighting chance to better their lives.”

He added, “These dollars are not going to the schools, these dollars are going to the families. This is a tax credit; it is not a voucher.”

It was Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, who took the Republicans to the mat over education funding and the claims — like that of Sen. Kruse — that the tax credit program was to help low-income Minnesotans.

“What the majority members are telling us right now, that this is about low-income children, about minority children, I am just shocked to hear this,” she said. “I want to remind you that we cut all funding for the Indian Child Welfare Act, which is given to the lowest income Indian children in Minnesota. We also canceled all of the funding for youth summer programs in the lowest income communities in Minnesota. We cut compensatory funding for the three largest districts in the state of Minnesota where we have the highest concentration of poverty. We also cut integration which allows predominately low income children to attend school outside Minneapolis and St. Paul districts. We also cut all the funding for caregiver support that provides funding for grandparents of children who are placed in out of home placement.”

She continued, “All of this funding, members, was for poor children and you just cut this funding, so do not come to us today that you want to provide public funding for private schools to support low income children, children of color because that is just not true.”

Finally, she said, “What you are doing is taking public dollars to go to private schools because you want to dismantle public education. That’s what you want to do. Just don’t lie about it.”

Torres Ray’s statement drew protests from Republicans who complained to Senate President Michelle Fischbach that Torres Ray was out of line. Fischbach offered a tepid admonishment before moving on with the vote on the amendment, which failed largely along party lines.

The Senate then passed the omnibus tax bill with the private school tax credit attached, also along party lines.

Potential presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and his wife will be in Minneapolis in May to present their film “Rediscovering God in America,” a Citizens United production. The event is hosted by the Minnesota Family Council, according to an event listing on the Newt Gingrich’s campaign website. The film recounts Gingrich’s assertion that the founding fathers envisioned a religious United States and decries secularism.

The film is produced by Citizens United, of corporate expenditure fame. The “American values” film is narrated by Gingrich along with Callista Gingrich, his third wife and former mistress. Though the film and associated book are over two years, old, the Minnesota Family Council will be bringing it to Minneapolis. In 2009, Gingrich made the assertion at a “Rediscovering God in America” event that Christians are surrounded by paganism in America. The Minneapolis event will take place on May 17 and information about the location is not yet available.

Here’s a video clip of Gingrich talking about “Rediscovering God in America.”

And here’s the official trailer for the film:

A provision in the House Omnibus Education Finance bill released by Republican leadership on Monday could run afoul of the state constitution: School vouchers. Minnesota’s constitutional ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools, which stems back to anti-Catholic sentiment in the late 1800s, could create legal problems for the bill, as other states have found.

HF934 contains numerous proposals for education funding in the 2012-2013 fiscal cycle, including the initiation of a controversial school voucher program. Over the course of four years, the authors propose to divert $53 million away from public schools into private — mainly religious — school coffers. Parents would choose the school, the state would cut a check and send it to the school, and the parent would arrive at the school to endorse the check.

Minnesota already has a tax credit system for low-income families which sets $1,625 per family for each student in kindergarten through grade 6 and $2,500 per family for each student in grades 7 through 12.

In several states where vouchers have been attempted, they’ve been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the separation of church and state and clauses that mandate uniform access to education. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled vouchers constitutional, state laws are many times more strict.

David Schultz, a politics and law professor at Hamline University, said that Minnesota law is different from federal law.

“The federal courts have ruled on vouchers and aid to religious schools on several occasions,” Schultz told the Minnesota Independent. “They use what is called the Lemon test to decide if the aid constitutes an establishment of religion. In general, some aid to these schools is okay for non-religious items.”

He continued, “However, Minnesota is potentially different. There is the clear constitutional clause that does not exist at the federal level. This suggests a potentially different outcome that might prohibit the type of funding as proposed in this bill.”

Article XIII, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution states:

“Prohibition as to aiding sectarian school. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.”

“Second, Minnesota has a tradition in many cases of interpreting its constitution more strictly than the federal constitution,” Schultz said. “This is definitely the case with the free exercise or religious freedom clause of the state constitution. Whether the same would be true [with this issue] is an open question.”

He concluded, “There are clear concerns that this finance bill could raise constitutional questions.”

Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, agreed that there are constitutional issues with such a system.

“If you want state money, you are a state school,” he said. Schools that accept vouchers may be saddled with state laws that mandate that topics be taught a certain way or laws that might impinge on the school’s religious nature.

He also questioned the wisdom of pulling money from the public school system for the program. “What has been the result of the charter school experiment?” he asked. “Has anything been learned that would make public schools more successful?”

Minnesota spent $64 million on charter schools in 2008 alone, so instead of pulling more money away from public schools, Samuelson argues, why not look to lessons learned from that program to improve the existing system?

“Is this a solution designed to create an English-style system, a two-tiered system with schools for the haves and schools for the have-nots?” added Samuelson.

That was a problem for Florida’s voucher proponents who lost in the courts because the state constitution mandated a uniform public school system. Allowing certain students to attend private schools with public money violated that state’s constitution.

But Samuelson said it could be a part of a different movement, one that wants to do away with Blaine Amendments, such as Minnesota’s ban on taxpayer funding for schools.

Ira “Chip” Lupu, of the George Washington University Law School, explains:

Funding of religion was such a contentious issue because of the increase in Catholic immigration in the mid-to-late 1800s. Public schools at this time led students in reciting Protestant but not Catholic prayers and reading from the Protestant but not the Catholic version of the Bible. As more and more Catholics immigrated to the United States, Catholic Americans began to resent sending their children to schools that were effectively Protestant. So they decided to start their own schools, where Catholic children could recite their own prayers and read from their own version of the Bible. The creation of these schools made many Protestants worry about whether the government would start funding Catholic schools. The Blaine Amendments arose from this concern about the “Catholicization” of American education.

Minnesota has such a law, as does Arizona where courts ruled that school vouchers violated that law.

The leading proponent of the amendments was Republican Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, though historians have disputed whether or how much anti-Catholic sentiment was involved in the amendments. Blaine, Minn., a suburb northwest of St. Paul, bears the name of the former senator.

A broad discussion of the Blaine Amendment debate can be read in the the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ publication “School Choice and the Blaine Amendments (PDF).

During testimony on the bill in the House Education Finance Committee Monday evening, it became clear that some advocates of school vouchers — supporters call it “school choice” — had issues with the program.

Peter Knoll, education director of Minnesota Catholic Conference, said his group supports the bill, but with caveats.

“We wish to reiterate out support for enrollment options,” he said. “The reservations we have has to do with the mandates that are embedded in the section regarding enrollment options. We think a better solution is to require schools to be accredited” through a state recognized group for participating schools.

Among the mandates included are anti-harassment rules, educational standards and testing and a prohibition on denying qualified students.

Dr. Karen Effrem of Education Liberty Watch — formerly called EdWatch — said that the “school choice” provisions are great so long as the mandates are lifted.

“With regard to school choice, we again appreciate the intent of the bill. We do want the mandates off, or move to a purely tax credit form of school choice bill such as Sen. Senjem’s in the Senate.”

Republican Sen. David Senjem of Rochester offered a bill that would provide significant tax credit to those who donate to nonprofits whose specific purpose is to provide scholarships for parents who are seeking school choice.

And the Senjem bill may get around significant constitutional barriers that the omnibus bill may face.

The watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State sent a letter to Minnesota Senate leadership Monday warning the chamber that Pastor Dennis Campbell‘s prayer last week was unconstitutional. Addressed to Senate President Michelle Fischbach, Majority Leader Amy Koch and Minority Leader Tom Bakk, the letter also urged the leaders to either refrain from allowing prayers in the Senate or to ensure that if it continues to do so it does in a way that respects other traditions.

The letter — which was signed by Ayesha N. Khan, Americans United’s legal director; Gregory M. Lipper, the group’s litigation counsel; and staff attorney Ian Smith — stated that numerous courts have ruled the type of prayer that Campbell gave, one that quotes Christian scripture and invokes Jesus Christ, unconstitutional.

“Pastor’s Campbell’s prayer was unconstitutional because it was sectarian and proselytizing,” the letter states. “The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution permits prayers at the beginning of legislative sessions if those prayers do not contain language or symbols specific to one religion.”

The letter, which cites reporting by the Minnesota Independent, goes on to state that several lower courts have allowed even broader leeway than the Supreme Court, and the type of prayer given by Campbell was of the sort that those lower courts have ruled against.

“Pastor Campbell’s prayer was unconstitutional even under the more permissive standard adopted by” other courts, wrote the attorneys.

The letter concluded, “Because the Senate is designed to represent all Minnesota citizens, regardless of faith, we urge you to refrain from opening future sessions with any type of prayer. If the Senate does continue open meetings with prayers, however, the Constitution requires you to ensure that they do not advance any particular religion.”

The prayer raised the ire of non-Christian senators and departed from longstanding tradition that allowed clergy from different faiths to offer prayer so long as the prayer is inclusive of all senators’ beliefs. Over the weekend, Campbell addressed those concerns, especially by Jewish lawmakers who commented, stating that he wasn’t “seeking to offend anybody but seeking to show respect for Jesus Christ, the creator, redeemer, savior and one day our judge, and we know the founders of the constitution were very supportive of Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

The letter, which appears below, echoes sentiments shared with the Minnesota Independent last week by Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United:

2011-03-21-minnesota-senate –

Pastor Dennis Campbell of St. Cloud’s Granite City Baptist Church appeared on Bradlee Dean’s radio program on Saturday to talk about a controversial prayer he gave on the Minnesota Senate floor last week that offended many of the non-Christians of that body. Campbell said that the Founding Fathers would have supported his prayer and that Jewish members of the Senate shouldn’t be offended because, after all, Jesus Christ was a Jew.

Campbell’s prayer departed from the tradition of the Minnesota Senate where clergy from many faith traditions offer nondenominational prayers at the start of every session. So far this year, Jewish and Christian leaders have offered prayers that avoided charged religious rhetoric. Campbell’s prayer invoked Jesus and passages from the Christian Bible. And some believe the prayer may run afoul of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Campbell told Bradlee Dean and his sidekick Jake McMillian about the aftermath of his prayer.

“After the prayer we were ushered out to the back room there and I had one or two people that opposed the prayer — and they were both Jewish folks — to one of them I said, ‘I want you to know that as Christians that we really love the Jews,’” said Campbell. “He made a comment that they weren’t interested in our love so much as respect.”

He continued, “We weren’t seeking to offend anybody but seeking to show respect for Jesus Christ, the creator, redeemer, savior and one day our judge, and we know the founders of the constitution were very supportive of Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

McMillian added, “When we are talking about religious equality we all know that when our founders referred to the term ‘religion’ they were referring to Christian denominations.”

Campbell explained his decision to conduct an overtly Christian prayer. “One of the things that I really tried to keep in mind was that I was not praying to the Senate, we were praying to God,” he said. “One of the Senators, the Jew, did you notice he quoted from the Old Testament? — and, by the way, Jesus was a Jew — one of the Jews said, ‘If you pray to God, that’s good enough.’”

Campbell continued, “Well, then atheists could be offended. That’s not going to solve the problem and not having prayer at all is not going to solve the problem because we are going to have one freedom after another taken away.”

Dean and McMillian discussed DFL Sen. Terri Bonoff who had first protested the sectarian prayer offered by Campbell. Dean suggested that his ministry should try to take her out in 2012.

“Maybe what we need to do is get her name eradicated,” Dean said. “She’s looking to get rid of who we are as a people, well then why don’t we help her possibly leave.”

Controversial Pastor Dennis Campbell gave a Jesus-filled prayer on the Minnesota Senate floor on Monday on the invitation of Senate Republicans. That speech led to calls by several of the chamber’s non-Christians to ensure that prayers in the Senate are conducted in a nondenominational manner for fears of violating the state and federal constitutions. Watchdog groups say those are very real concerns.

Sen. Teri Bonoff of Minnetonka, who is Jewish, told the Associated Press on Tuesday that she wants leadership to change language in the Senate rules so that the word “request” in reference to interfaith prayers in the chamber be changed to “require.”

“I’m a very religious woman and believe deeply in God,” Bonoff told the AP. “We honor God in public and our political discourse, and that’s proper. But in doing a nondenominational prayer we are honoring him without violating the separation of church and state.”

According to Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, Campbell’s prayer came close to violating that constitutional requirement.

He told the Minnesota Independent that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Marsh v. Chambers allowed legislative prayers as long as they are non-sectarian — without expressing a particular religion.

“Some lower courts have weighed in since then, including in some cases sponsored by Americans United,” he said. “We have argued that in light of Marsh, legislative prayers must be non-sectarian.”

He said a number of lower courts have held to that standard with one exception: The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals covering Georgia, Alabama and Florida found that prayers could be sectarian so long as they don’t proselytize.

“Regardless of what the courts say, Americans United opposes official legislative prayers in all cases,” said Boston. “Government-sponsored religion inevitably has the effect of elevating one faith over others and sending the message that some citizens are second-class citizens.”

He also said that at times pastors will inject politics into something that’s supposed to be for every member of the chamber. For example, in 2009, a pastor in Kansas gave a prayer that condemned abortion.

Boston added, “In other cases, fundamentalists have protested when non-Christian prayers are offered.” He cited a prayer given be a Hindu priest on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Christian conservatives were livid that a faith they didn’t hold to was honored in Congress.

That was the case in 2001 when the Dalai Lama spoke before the Minnesota Legislature. While the Tibetan Buddhist leader did not give an invocation, his mere presence as a religious leader riled conservative Christians.

“As a Christian, I am offended that we would have the Dalai Lama come and speak to a joint meeting of our Minnesota Legislature,” said then-Rep. Arlon Lindner. “He claims to be a god-king, a leader of the Buddha religion, which historically has been considered a cult because of its anti-Biblical teachings concerning the one true Holy God, Creator of Heaven and earth and His Son, Jesus Christ.”

Boston said it’s incidents like those that create problems when prayers are offered at government functions.

“It would be best if the government got entirely out of the prayer business,” he said. “It’s not the job of the state to sponsor any form of religious worship, even a seemingly ceremonial legislative prayer. If members of the Minnesota Senate feel the need for spiritual guidance, I have no doubt that there are many members of the clergy in the Twin Cities area who would be happy to meet with them on a voluntary basis.”

Republican Rep. John Kline is a sponsor of a resolution in the U.S. House that would reaffirm “In God We Trust” as the national motto and encourages the posting of the motto on government buildings and in public schools. The resolution has raised the ire of secular groups who say the resolution is unnecessary and that it is discriminatory against non-believers as well as faithful Americans whose religious traditions do not involve a Judeo-Christian god.

The resolution reads in part, “Whereas the sentiment, ‘In God We Trust’, has been an integral part of United States society since its founding; Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured; Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction.”

That resolution has sparked concern among separation of church and state watchdogs. The Secular Coalition for America (SCA) sent a letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee urging them to reject the bill because it’s unnecessary because the motto is already written in law and that it shuts out millions of Americans.

“The motto is not inclusive of the beliefs of all Americans — including the millions of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists represented by our Coalition, as well as the millions of other Americans whose non-Judeo-Christian beliefs do not entail the use of the word ‘god,’” wrote Sean Faircloth, executive director of the SCA. “As we watch history unfold across northern Africa and the Middle East, it is wise to remember that it is our acceptance of all viewpoints and the unique plurality of our citizenry that makes our country strong.”

Here’s the full resolution followed by the full letter to the committee:

Reaffirming ‘In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supporting and encouraging the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

Whereas `In God We Trust’ is the official motto of the United States;

Whereas the sentiment, `In God We Trust’, has been an integral part of United States society since its founding;

Whereas in times of national challenge or tragedy, the people of the United States have turned to God as their source for sustenance, protection, wisdom, strength, and direction;

Whereas the Declaration of Independence recognizes God, our Creator, as the source of our rights, `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’;

Whereas the national anthem of the United States says `praise the power that hath made and preserved us a nation . . . and this be our motto: in God is our trust.’;

Whereas the words `In God We Trust’ appear over the entrance to the Senate Chamber and above the Speaker’s rostrum in the House Chamber;

Whereas the oath taken by all Federal employees, except the President, states `I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.’;

Whereas John Adams said, `Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.’;

Whereas if religion and morality are taken out of the marketplace of ideas, the very freedom on which the United States was founded cannot be secured;

Whereas as President Eisenhower said and President Ford later repeated, `Without God, there could be no American form of government, nor, an American way of life.’; and

Whereas President John F. Kennedy said, `The guiding principle and prayer of this Nation has been, is now, and ever shall be `In God We Trust.’: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress reaffirms `In God We Trust’ as the official motto of the United States and supports and encourages the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions.

The letter:

Dear Representative,

The Secular Coalition for America urges you to oppose H. Con. Res. 13, a resolution that would unnecessarily reaffirm the phrase “In God We Trust” as our nation’s official motto. This resolution does not alter law in any way, thus its purpose is one of perception only. The motto is not inclusive of the beliefs of all Americans—including the millions of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists represented by our Coalition, as well as the millions of other Americans whose non-Judeo-Christian beliefs do not entail the use of the word “god.”

The resolution’s passage out of the House Judiciary Committee would continue to alienate millions of Americans from their government and encroach further on the nation’s tradition of separation of church and state.

As we watch history unfold across northern Africa and the Middle East, it is wise to remember that it is our acceptance of all viewpoints and the unique plurality of our citizenry that makes our country strong. Branding our secular country with a religious motto only creates division among its citizens and erodes the wall of separation between church and state.

The phrase “In God We Trust” was adopted only in 1956 during the McCarthy Era. For a secular nation that claims to provide equality, liberty, and freedom for all, the motto means that the beliefs of theists and nontheists are not treated the same at all. “In God We Trust” does not apply to the more than 16 percent of Americans who identify themselves as atheist, agnostic, nonreligious, or unaffiliated, and it does not apply to religious Americans who do not have Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Furthermore, by “supporting and encouraging” the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and government institutions, the resolution could create a costly and unnecessary obligation for thousands of local and state governments during a time when they have limited resources and embattled budgets.

Several points in the resolution need to be countered. For example, the phrase “In God We Trust” has not been around since our nation’s founding; it did not appear nationally until the mid-1800s and not widely until the 20th century.

Second, the Declaration of Independence does not ever mention “God,” only a “Creator,” an important word choice and difference. The Declaration, while significant and historic, is not a legal document. The Constitution is the foundational document of our government and never mentions “God.” The only references to religion in the Constitution are to prevent its use in oaths for government office, to prevent the government from establishing religion, and to protect each citizen’s right to religious freedom.

Third, while the oath of office for federal employees under 5 U.S.C section 3331 does include the sentence “So help me God,” the U.S. Constitution makes it very clear in Article VI that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” With that precedent in mind, perhaps Congress should revise the oath rather than waste time reaffirming a motto that excludes millions of constituents.

Fourth, and most importantly, in times of tragedy, anyone may turn to the religious deity of his or her choice if doing so provides them comfort; however, millions of Americans do not turn to God or any other deity in sorrowful times. To make a sweeping statement that “the people of the United States” turn to God is to alienate and blatantly exclude these taxpayers and constituents while favoring Judeo-Christian believers.

Finally, while the words of President John Adams are important, so are his actions. President Adams presented to the Senate and signed the Treaty of Tripoli in June 1797, which states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]”

Rather than wasting time on a resolution that in effect does nothing except alienate constituents and break down the wall of separation of church and state, the House Judiciary Committee should focus on protecting the rights of all U.S. citizens and the integrity of the Constitution.

Sincerely,

Sean Faircloth
Executive Director
Secular Coalition for America

President Obama named a dozen faith leaders to the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on Friday, and two of them hail from Minnesota. Leith Anderson of the National Association of Evangelicals, who is also Tim Pawlenty’s pastor, was appointed by Obama, as was fellow Minnesota Bishop Mark Hanson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. The council, formerly known under President Bush as the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, has had a healthy number of Minnesotans under Obama.

Anderson has been the head of the NAE since 2006, and he’s been the pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie since 1977. Pawlenty’s wife Mary has been a long-time member of Wooddale, and Tim Pawlenty joined the church after the two married in the late-1980s.

Anderson has been seen as a moderate evangelical, eager to find agreement on issues with both sides of the political aisle. In early December, the NEA released a survey outlining 18 policy positions on which Obama and evangelicals agree.

“In the current political climate, many focus their energy on fueling issues of disagreement – people of faith included,” Anderson said at the time. “But, I find it really interesting that evangelical leaders readily look for where we can agree and support.”

Obama also appointed ELCA Bishop Mark Hanson, who has been serving as the presiding bishop since 2001. He oversaw a contentious assembly meeting in Minneapolis in 2008 where the church voted to allow congregations to have gay and lesbian pastors in committed relationships.

And earlier this year, Hanson appeared in a video urging an and to anti-LGBT bullying as part of the It Gets Better campaign.

The response to his video was strong on both sides of the debate over homosexuality within Christianity.

“This is an evangelical moment given to us like none other,” Hanson said in a statement about the controversy, “because we live in a culture where most people see the Christian witness as an obsession with drawing lines in the sand and expending enormous energies defining who is on the right side of that line and who is on the rejected side. We know from the biblical witness, however, to beware of drawing lines in the sand, because Jesus is going to be standing on both sides of the line of the sand. For that, he got nailed to a cross.”

Currently serving on Obama’s faith council is Minnesotan Peg Chemberlin who is the president of the National Council of Churches and executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches. Her term is set to expire this year.

In addition to the Minnesotans on the list, Obama also appointed the Reverend Elder Nancy L. Wilson of the Metropolitan Community Churches, a Christian denomination that sprang out of the LGBT community.