Faith & the Common Good June 17, 2011

Faith & the Common Good is a three-days-a-week feature of The Progressive Christian to inform readers of major issues around faith and the common good. Excerpts from current news are taken from sources including Reuters, Faith in Public Life, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, the Pew Forum on People & the Press, USA Today, the New York Times, Yahoo!, Google News and other online news outlets. Readers may contribute by sending items of interest to the Editor. Please include the item's headline, author and website.

* * *

Congressional hearings on Islam betray American values

Stephen Prothero
CNN, Belief Blog, June 16, 2011

The anti-Muslims are at it again.

It is commonplace to think of the United States as a tolerant nation, an asylum for immigrants from all nations and religions. But throughout U.S. history there are moments that remind us of our collective depravity – our inability as a nation to live up consistently to the values articulated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

June 13 was one of those moments, because Representative Peter King (R-NY) held a House Homeland Security Committee hearing on Muslim "radicalization" in U.S. prisons.

Some who watched the hearings … might be experiencing a sense of deja vu, since this is Round Two in King's hearings on the "radicalization" of Muslim Americans.

… After Representative Laura Richardson (D-CA) said at the June 13 hearing that King's obsession with Islamic radicalization "can be deemed racist and discriminatory," King said that "the purpose of this Committee is to combat Islamic terrorism because that is the terrorist threat to this country."

I disagree. I think the purpose of King's hearings is to call into question the Americanness of U.S. Muslims by branding their religion a threat to the nation. And once again I observe that we have been here before, including in 1855 when Protestants circulated an image of Pope Pius IX crumbling the Constitution in his right hand while plunging a sceptre into an American eagle with his left.

Editor's note: See Aaron Saari's commentary, "The GOP's Problem with Islam"

* * *

Church Leaders Criticize Alabama's Immigration Law

Brian Lyman
Montgomery Advertiser, June 16, 201

Leaders of the United Methodist, Catholic and Episcopal churches Church in Alabama are opposing the state's tough new law on illegal immigrants.

United Methodist Bishops William Willimon and Paul W. Leeland issued a statement June 15 saying the law violates a basic understanding of the Christian faith, to serve all people at all times. Willimon and Leeland said that the United Methodist Church welcomes people regardless of their immigration status.

Episcopal Bishop Henry N. Parsley also joined the opposition on June 15, stating: "The recently adopted bill HB 56 will make it impossible to love and be hospitable to our neighbors as we ought to be. It is a profoundly disappointing decision and a sad moment for our state."

In April, Roman Catholic Archbishop Thomas Rodi of Mobile and Bishop Robert Baker of Birmingham co-signed a letter saying the law violated the First Amendment to the Constitution, "in particular by criminalizing our Gospel imperative of serving the poor."

The new Alabama law makes it illegal to knowingly hire or even give a ride to an illegal immigrant. It requires public schools to check the immigration status of students and report them to the state.

* * *

Southern Baptists support path to legal status in immigration reform

Bob Allen
Associated Baptist Press June 16, 2011

The Southern Baptist Convention adopted a debated resolution June 15 calling for "a just and compassionate path to legal status" for undocumented immigrants.

President Obama supports immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for an estimated 11 million people who are living in the country illegally. Opponents say amnesty encourages others to enter the United States illegally and compete for American jobs.

"This will be known as Southern Baptist amnesty," said Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif.

"That is exactly what this is," said Drake, a former convention vice president. "This is amnesty any way you phrase it."

… Resolutions committee chair Paul Jimenez, pastor of First Baptist Church of Taylors, S.C., defended the statement as a "realistic and biblical approach to immigration."

While recognizing there are political implications, Jimenez said the committee's main concern was viewing undocumented workers as prospects for evangelism and ministry.

* * *

Separate Bills Focus on Two Pieces of Immigration Puzzle

By Julia Preston
New York Times, June 16, 2011

... On June 14, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill that would require all employers nationwide to use a federal electronic system, known as E-Verify, to confirm the employment eligibility of new hires. Mr. Smith's bill had only Republican sponsors; a similar proposal was offered the same day in the Senate by Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

Also on June 14, Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, introduced a bill that would expand the number of permanent-resident documents, known as green cards, for foreign students graduating in math and sciences from top research universities. Ms. Lofgren's bill, which had only Democratic sponsors, would also create new types of green cards for immigrant entrepreneurs who start businesses with $500,000 in backing from American investors, and for foreigners who create businesses with their own resources that employ at least 10 American workers.

* * *

High court spurns atheist's 'under God' challenge

Bob Egelko
San Francisco Chronicle June 15, 2011

WASHINGTON -- A Sacramento atheist's challenge to the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, which stirred a legal and political frenzy nearly a decade ago, has quietly expired in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Michael Newdow said June 14, however, that he isn't giving up and plans to file one or more lawsuits this year in hopes of winning a favorable ruling that would eventually reach the high court.

… The justices denied review June 13, without comment, of Newdow's appeal on behalf of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and a New Hampshire family. They wanted the court to overturn a ruling in November by a federal appeals court in Boston that the daily schoolroom pledge to "one nation under God" was a patriotic exercise, not an endorsement of religion.

* * *

Lawsuit filed to halt Texas abortion sonogram law

Christy Hoppe
Dallas News, June 13, 2011

AUSTIN — Texas’ new anti-abortion law faces its first legal test.

The national Center for Reproductive Rights filed a federal lawsuit June 13 to halt implementation of the requirements that women wanting an abortion must have a sonogram and hear a detailed description of the fetus.

The group called the mandates patronizing and an intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship.

… Backers of the law, which goes into effect Sept. 1, say it will provide better information and deter women from having an abortion. Legislative supporters say they crafted the wording to withstand legal challenge.

It says a sonogram must be performed, but a woman may turn her head and choose not to see it. Doctors still must verbally recount details of fetal organ and limb development. If they don’t, they could lose their medical license.

The law also says most patients must wait 24 hours after having the sonogram and hearing a description before returning for an abortion.

The center filed the suit in Austin on behalf of doctors and clinics, saying the law violates their speech and due process rights by forcing physicians to deliver “politically motivated communications to women.”

The doctors must provide certain information, even if it is against the wishes of their patients, which the suit says is a breach of medical ethics.

It also contends that the law discriminates against women by subjecting them to paternalistic requirements not imposed on men.

The suit asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue a permanent injunction against its implementation.