Public Interest Outweighs A Pharmacist’s Convictions
Pharmacists must dispense the controversial Plan B contraceptive pill regardless of religious conviction, according to yesterday’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its opinion, the court found “There is a general public interest in ensuring that all citizens have timely access to lawfully prescribed medications.”
Defendants in the suit had argued that dispensing the pill, required by a 2007 Washington state regulation, violated the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause. Three court of appeals judges disagreed saying the state regulation was “neutral” and that the public interest in access to health care trumped the individual beliefs of the pharmacists.
The suit was brought by The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group founded as a counter to the American Civil Liberties Union. But political ideology seemed not to be a factor in the three-judge opinion. According to the Los Angeles Times, “The three 9th Circuit judges found common ground despite differing outlooks: Two conservatives named to the court by President George W. Bush and a liberal named by President Clinton made up the panel.”
Pharmacists’ protection laws, also known as “conscience clauses,” have been enacted by eight states giving pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense contraceptives or other medications to which they have moral or religious objections. Only one state, New Jersey, has passed legislation prohibiting pharmacists from exercising personal objection to filling lawful prescriptions. California’s conscience clause allows pharmacists to decline to fill a prescription only “when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures website.
Pharmacists protection laws are reminiscent of the rights private businesses asserted during the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 1960s. Restaurant and hotel owners claimed it was within their discretion to serve, or deny service to, persons of their choice. Of course, in the South particularly, the persons white lunch-counter owners refused to serve just happened to be black. Federal equal opportunity laws gave all Americans, including minorities, equal opportunities in the areas of education, housing, transportation, and healthcare. Individual owners’ claims of personal convictions against integration were overshadowed by the public interest of ensuring access to all businesses designed to serve the public. In some communities, “private club” laws were passed to subvert the public access requirements. Some restauranteurs including Lester Maddox, later elected governor of Georgia, closed their establishments rather than integrate them.
Similar choices face pharmacies and pharmacists today. Drugstores open to the public and licensed to dispense legal medications must make access to all legal medications available to those who present valid prescriptions.
Allowing pharmacists to subvert public interest because of personal conviction is not good public policy. Pharmacists whose personal consciences will not allow them to dispense certain drugs should either find employment in a non-public sector or seek another line of work. If pharmacists’ conscience clauses are allowed to stand, HIV patients could be denied drugs by a pharmacist who assumes that the patient contracted HIV/Aids through some type of behavior he or she considered immoral. Children could be denied medication for ADHD or autism by pharmacists who misapply the Old Testament proverb that parents who spare the rod, spoil the child.
The Ninth Circuit made a decision based on the common good regardless of personal conviction, and that is what makes a disparate collection of people into a society governed by the rule of law.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Doesn’t Work for Churches
It doesn’t work well in the military, and apparently “don’t ask, don’t tell” doesn’t work for churches either. An example is the saga of Broadway Baptist Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. At their annual meeting Southern Baptists expelled the Texas church from its fellowship over the issue of homosexuality. Thousands of SBC convention delegates, called messengers, voted unanimously to end the church’s 127-year relationship to the denomination.
Broadway Baptist in Fort Worth expressed disappointment with the SBC decision. Deacon chairperson Kathy Madeja was quoted by Associated Baptist Press as saying, “We are disappointed with the decision of the Southern Baptist Convention. Our mission at Broadway is and will continue to be consistent with the SBC’s stated enterprise of reaching the world for Christ. Like other SBC churches, membership at Broadway is by acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord and the experience of believer’s baptism by immersion.”
“We do not believe Broadway has taken any action which would justify its being deemed not in friendly cooperation with the SBC. It is unfortunate that the Southern Baptist Convention decided otherwise and has severed its affiliation with Broadway Baptist Church.”
The controversy at Broadway Baptist Church boiled over when the church decided to produce a new church directory. Over the years the church had welcomed gay and lesbian members, and many of these members sought to be photographed with their same-sex partners for the church directory. The controversy led to the resignation of pastor Brett Younger, who left the congregation to teach at Mercer University’s McAfee School of Theology in 2008.
At the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting in 2008, a messenger to the convention presented a motion to expel Broadway Baptist Church because they were no longer in friendly cooperation with the SBC. In reply, Broadway Baptist Church appealed to the SBC’s Executive Committee, denying that the church had violated SBC mandates, and stating that the church wished to remain a part of the SBC.
In its appeal, Broadway Baptist stated, “Broadway never has taken any church action to affirm, approve or endorse homosexual behavior,” according to Jorene Taylor Swift, minister of congregational care. “Broadway Baptist Church considers itself to be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention and has every intention of remaining so,” Swift wrote.
And therein lies the rub. Broadway Baptist operated within an ecclesiastical “don’t ask, don’t tell” standard regarding its homosexual members. While attempting to welcome all persons, Broadway indicated by its actions that it did not want to know if prospective members were gay or lesbian, only if they had accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior, and had been baptized by immersion.
The church also sought to maintain its SBC membership by denying it had overtly endorsed or affirmed homosexual conduct, which would have been a clear violation of SBC doctrinal statements.
In short, the church lost on all counts. According to Associated Baptist Press, Broadway alienated many of its straight members by considering featuring the same-sex member couples in its new photographic directory. The church offended some of its homosexual members by not including same-sex couples together in the directory. The congregation ran afoul of the SBC with its “don’t ask” approach to the issue of members’ sexual orientation, stating that new members only had to express faith in Christ, and submit to believer’s baptism by immersion.
In walking this ethical tightrope, Broadway Baptist Church lost its footing. Expelled by the SBC, the congregation now should search its collective soul for a more transparent and theologically-reasoned position. Don’t ask, don’t tell did not work for Broadway Baptist Church.
The very nature of a Christian faith community assumes the inclusion of all persons in open and honest confession of sinfulness and acceptance of grace. In ancient monastic communities a rule of life governed the community, either implicitly or explicitly. In 21st century faith communities, that rule cannot be don’t ask, don’t tell. – Amicus Dei
Baptist Madrasas
Imagine a school where a religious holy book is the primary textbook, modern science is seen as suspect, males are separated from females, unbelievers are the enemy, and 21st century culture is viewed with hostility. If you think this sounds like a fundamentalist Islamic madrasa, think again. This might be the future of K-12 education if some Southern Baptists have their way.
Morris Chapman, CEO of the Southern Baptist Convention has added his voice to those proposing that Southern Baptists withdraw from public schools. In an April, 2009 edition of the Baptist Messenger of Oklahoma, Chapman wrote, “In far too many public schools throughout the country our children are being bombarded with secular reasoning, situational ethics and moral erosion.” Chapman believes SBC churches could found “at least one Christian school in every association.” An association is a group of churches in a small geographical region such as a city or county. Southern Baptists have approximately 1,200 local associations spread across all 50-states.
Chapman is the latest, but not the only well-known Southern Baptist leader calling for the abandonment of public education. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler wrote in 2005, “I believe that now is the time for responsible Southern Baptists to develop an exit strategy from the public schools.”In that same year, the annual Southern Baptist Convention meeting rejected resolutions by the leaders of the public school exit movement, Bruce Shortt and T. C. Pinkney.
This year when the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Louisville, Kentucky, things may be different. Shortt, joined by E. Ray Moore, plans to submit a public school exit resolution veiled as support of Morris Chapman’s article. The resolution, posted on ExodusMandate.org, praises Chapman and quotes from his article –
Whereas, in recent weeks Dr. Morris Chapman, Executive Director of the Southern Baptist Convention, has observed that in far too many public schools throughout the country our children are being bombarded with secular reasoning, situational ethics and moral erosion;
This paragraph leads to several more “whereas” paragraphs, finally stating the resolution’s purpose which is camoflaged as recognition of Chapman:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention commends Dr. Chapman for his courage and vision;
However, in the three concluding paragraphs, the resolution calls for “Southern Baptist churches, agencies, associations, and other organizations to investigate innovative methods of providing Christian education” — a euphemism for exiting from public schools. Further, the resolution “encourages all Southern Baptist agencies to communicate repeatedly (italics in the original) with parents and pastors concerning the Christian educational alternatives that are available.” And, finally, the resolution provides specific examples of those alternatives to public education — “Christian schools… homeschooling…University Model Schools and Christian One Room Schoolhouses.”
The resolution’s last sentence, however, is also its most cynical. After instructions to Southern Baptists churches and agencies, the resolution expresses concern for “giving particular regard to the needs of children from low income and single parent families.” Chapman’s article stated, “Many of our inner cities are suffering from failed families and failing students.” Chapman then cited statistics stating “dropout rates up to 60 percent; 70 percent of teens are sexually active; and, the city has alarming rates for crimes, sexually transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock births.” Chapman’s conclusion is that “Kingdom [of God] education” would be a “welcome alternative to public schools.”
All of this might sound like meaningless posturing, but resolutions have been repeatedly presented to the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting by Shortt, Pinkney, and Moore since 2004. Prior to those resolutions, Southern Baptists had routinely supported public education. A 1979 resolution stated, “Southern Baptists historically have been strong supporters of public education.” However, as the “conservative resurgence” of the 1980s and 1990s made gains in SBC leadership, resolutions concerning public education became more narrowly focused. A 1991 resolution called for “parental choice” in education; a 1994 resolution condemned “outcome-based” educational models; parental choice was featured again in 1996; home schooling was praised in a 1997 vote; and, in 2005 parents were urged to hold schools accountable for their “moral influence” on children. The 2005 resolution concluded with a call to parents “to make prayerful and informed decisions regarding where and how they educate their children.” The groundwork has been carefully laid for this year’s convention vote.
As the SBC has moved steadily to the right in its critique of public education, Shortt, Pinkney, and Moore have led the way. Moore’s website, ExodusMandate.org features articles calling the public education system “Pharaoh’s school system (i.e. government schools).” Shortt and Moore characterize public education as “Marxist,” “leftist,” “humanist,” and “pagan, and godless.”
In their overreaching video titled “The Call To Dunkirk,” Moore and Shortt compare the World War II rescue of Allied soldiers at Dunkirk by civilians, to the rescue of today’s children from “pagan, godless schools.” The video features footage of Dunkirk, followed by extended footage of Hitler, Nazi rallies, and Hitler youth. Additional footage of students running from Columbine High School during the tragic shooting is also cut into the ominous voice-over by Moore and Shortt about “government schools.”Over and over the words “leftist,” “Marxist,” “godless,” “pagan” and other perjorative terms are used to describe public education.
An outside observer might consider Shortt, Moore, and Pinkney to be fringe extremists, but Pinkney served as 2nd vice-president of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2001, and has led the fight within the convention to get an official SBC public school exit strategy approved.
Other actions within the SBC’s own educational institutions do not bode well for the future of K-12 education should the SBC embrace a public school exit strategy. At SBC seminaries, women faculty have been dismissed or relegated to non-theological studies, or segregated from teaching men. At Southwestern Seminary, President Paige Patterson established what some have derisively called “the cookie-making degree,” headed by his wife, Dorothy. According to the Southwestern Seminary website, the women’s programs at Southwestern are geared to preparing women to pursue roles that are “appropriate for your own diverse interests and unique giftedness within the boundaries of biblical priorities.” The website further states, “Woman-to-woman teaching is the biblical method of choice.” The basis for that statement is The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message which prohibits women from serving as pastors, effectively stopping SBC seminaries from training women for that role.
The Southern Baptist Convention continues to move further to the right as its new member and baptismal statistics decline. Apparently, SBC leaders such as Morris Chapman, Al Mohler, and Paige Patterson are determined to complete their “conservative resurgence” agenda before their tenures end, even if it means jeopardizing the future of the SBC and America’s children. – Amicus Dei
A Sense of Decency Still Needed
The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States by President Barack Obama has electrified the Hispanic community in America. Now the largest minority group in the United States, Hispanic-Americans have long sought their piece of the American dream in this land of possibility in which all, except Native Americans, are recent immigrants. Today’s nomination of the first Hispanic woman to the nation’s highest court is another milestone in the recognition of the pluralism of our society.
Latina, the upscale lifestyle magazine, celebrated Judge Sotomayor’s nomination today with this lede paragraph:
“Today’s historic nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has had a huge impact on Latina staffers. It is yet another concrete reminder that anything is possible.”
But the jubilation was short-lived as Latina continued:
“But as we celebrate such a huge leap for both women and Latinos, we are reminded of the uglier side of politics by racist right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh, who discussed Judge Sotomayor on his radio show today and proclaimed, “Do I want her to fail? Yeah. Do I want her to fail to get on the court? Yes. She’d be a disaster on the Court.”
Limbaugh was not alone in attacking Judge Sotomayor, Latina noted. Mike Huckabee, former Baptist preacher and presidential candidate, issued this statement according to Latina:
“The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bipartisan way were mere rhetoric.”
Of course, Huckabee’s statement erroneously identified Judge Sotomayor as Maria, rather than Sonia. Latina replied with a good-humored, but pointed jab at Huckabee:
“One huge problem there, Mike! Her name isn’t Maria. Contrary to popular belief, every Latina in the United States isn’t named Maria. We’ll forgive you. We’re sure you were just watching West Side Story last night in preparation for this statement and got confused.”
While the Washington Post reported that Republicans were withholding criticism of Sotomayor, other political analysts offered a real-world perspective. The New York Times quotes Matthew Dowd, former adviser to George W. Bush, as saying Republicans do not want to be perceived as opposing the nomination of the first Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court:
“Because you’ll have a bunch of white males who lead the Judiciary Committee leading the charge taking on an Hispanic women and everybody from this day forward is going to know she’s totally qualified,” he said. “It’s a bad visual. It’s bad symbolism for the Republicans.”
Dowd commented that in the future Republicans will have to win 40% of the Hispanic vote to capture the White House. John McCain took less than 35% in the 2008 election.
Sotomayor’s nomination hearings this summer promise to be interesting viewing. But, what seems to be lost in today’s negative responses to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination is a sense of decency that should pervade the Senate’s advise-and-consent process. Beyond the politics of why any senator should or should not back Sotomayor, she deserves to be treated with respect.
Americans have seen the ugly face of fear and accusation taint other proceedings in our nation’s history. During the Senate Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, Senator Joseph McCarthy relentlessly badgered the Army’s chief legal representative, Joseph Nye Welch. Finally, exasperated with McCarthy’s false accusations about a colleague, Welch faced down McCarthy with these courageous words:
“Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” — Wikipedia
Those hearings and the American public’s ultimate rejection of McCarthy, led to the censure of the right-wing senator from Wisconsin. It is decency that was needed that day in that Senate hearing room. Americans should demand today, as Joseph Welch did then, a sense of decency at long last. — Amicus Dei
UPDATE: May 27, 2009 — Today Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter both called Judge Sotomayor a “racist.” Gingrich said she should withdraw from consideration because of her racism. Apparently my comments above fell on rocky soil. And so it goes.
UPDATE: May 28, 2009 — Ed Rollins, Republican consultant and media commentator, appeals to Republicans to treat Sotomayor with the respect she has earned. Perhaps there are still voices of reason in the political arena.
UPDATE: May 28, 2009 — Sojourner’s blog, God’s Politics, picked up this post for their site, and it garnered a good number of comments.
Gen C: The Connective Collective slideshow
Watch this slide show about Gen C – the connected culture of the millennials. Helpful stuff on a generation that churches need to connect with. [Language warning on a couple of slides. View before showing.]
Must-reading: ‘Saving Paradise’
Normally, I read an entire book before posting about it. But, I am reading a fascinating new book, Saving Paradise — subtitled, How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire, by Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. You need to read this book. Brock and Parker offer some of the freshest, most exciting insights into the transformation of the Christian church over the past 2,000 years.
Paradise, the authors contend, was the focus of the early church. Paradise was where humanity was created in the image of God. Paradise was the destiny of the people of God — the land flowing with milk and honey. The psalmists wrote of paradise; and the prophets described the renewed land as paradise restored. The church was the “portal to paradise” and baptism the rite that ushered new converts back into the paradise that sin had lost.
The book is also filled with first-through-fourth century historical vignettes depicting how the early church spoke of and anticipated paradise here and in eternity. One of the most fascinating chapters titled, “So Great a Cloud” describes how the early church held sacred dinners at the entrance to the burial places of Christians who had died. They placed a single lit candle in an empty chair, signifying the presence of the deceased in their midst. Based on the Hebrews 12 image of “a great cloud of witnesses” the early church believed that the dead were present with and helped those Christians still in this life. They believed that the resurrection defeated death immediately, not just in the future, and that the veil between this world and the world to come was much thinner than we believe now.
The tone of the book is positive, hopeful, and points us back to a time when the church took seriously and practically the life-giving power of the resurrection. Paradise was the narrative that gave coherence to creation, even in all its sin and short-coming. Paradise, the garden of God, is not only the goal, but the present reality of followers of Christ.
I read a lot of books, as I am sure many of you do. Most books are rehashes of old ideas, maybe with some good stories, or clever twists. But, Saving Paradise presents a unique perspective, a fresh encounter with the early church. If the second half of this thick volume (over 500 pages) is as good as the first, then I’m in for a treat for the next couple of days. I’ll let you know. – Amicus Dei
Collapse of the world as we know it
Now that we’re accustomed to serial crises — bank failures, oil prices, food contamination, and so on — I thought I’d roll all this together into one post about the collapse of society as we know it. Which actually makes for some thought-provoking reading. If you’re interested in how this might play out in the 21st century, read Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies.
Tainter is head of the Department of Environment and Society at Utah State University, and writes for an archaeological crowd. The Collapse of Complex Societies is not a pop culture book, but a textbook (which explains both the price and Cambridge Press as publisher). Be forewarned that this is not easy slogging, but Tainter meticulously outlines the reasons for the study of societal collapse (we’re all interested in why other societies failed so we can avoid the same fate), and debunks the common easy explanations of societal collapse, such as resource depletion, catastrophes, insufficient response to circumstances, intruders, social dysfunction, and so forth.
Collapse of a society, according to Tainter, is the result of diminishing returns of social complexity. This is seen primarily in the amount of energy required to maintain a society at its current level of complexity. Collapse occurs when a society simplifies its complexity, which can be dramatic or mundane.
Tainter spends a lot of time focused on ancient Rome because we have extant records in great detail. A spiral of rising taxes, territorial expansion, governmental crackdown, and imperial capriciousness continues until of its own weight (inability to maintain its complexity) the Western Roman Empire collapses for good. Of course, with a little help from the barbarian hoards, but Tainter contends collapse would have occurred anyway.
Follow up Tainter with Strauss and Howe’s book, The Fourth Turning. Strauss and Howe contend that the Millennial generation will face “the fourth turning” as a natural part of a cultural cycle here in the United States. This fourth turning is a crisis of great proportion and will challenge the Millennials to become a new version of “the greatest generation.” Makes for fascinating reading in light of Tainter’s argument about the diminishing returns of maintaining increasing complexity in a society.
Throw Kuntsler’s book, The Long Emergency, and Zakaria’s book, The Post American World, into the mix and a case can be made for an impending societal “adjustment” here in the US that will transform the future of this nation. What implications will these converging theories have for communities of faith in the future? That’s another interesting question that I don’t see anyone addressing? - Amicus Dei
The Disney-fication of War
I was listening to NPR on the way back from a meeting this afternoon. The guest on Fresh Air was Marc Garlasco, military analyst for Human Rights Watch, and former Pentagon targeting expert. Garlasco explained his work at the Pentagon in identifying “high value” — human — targets, and devising a bombing plan to take out those targets. While it was strange to hear a former Pentagon employee describe his work for Human Rights Watch, more disturbing was the jargon he used to describe his days at the DOD.
Garlasco was one of the chief “targeteers” for the Pentagon, joined by other “targeteers” from CIA and NSA. He spoke of the “targeteers” gathering to sort high profile targets in priority order, and then turning those lists over for “weaponeering” to the ordinance experts.
I was struck by the Disneyesque quality of those words — targeteers, weaponeering — which sounded jauntily like “mouseketeers” and “imagineering.” But the clincher was this — Garlasco said they watched their bombs fall from the comfort of their Pentagon offices via military satellite imagery — the ultimate video game experience, where real bombs kill real people in real places.
Garlasco now serves a military adviser to Human Rights Watch. His responsibilities include seeing first-hand the effects of bombs, particularly on civilians. And, in a “professional” manner he discusses with military commanders how they might reduce the collateral damage (read: stop killing innocent people) by changing their bombing techniques and ordinance selection.
This all smacks of trying to clean up war, which of course, is an impossibility. War is war, but if we can have a cleaned up version, much like a sanitized fantasyland, then war becomes an acceptable past-time for nations of our world. This is a world which has lost its way and confuses inhumane strategy for ethics. I suppose fewer civilian deaths are better than more civilian deaths, but trying to clean up war seems to me like trying to live in a graveyard. While everything might look neat and tidy, death permeates it all. — Amicus Dei
