Things of Caesar and Things of God

A couple of news stories about clashes between religious belief and governmental power caught my eye lately.

In this story from CNN, park officials have decreed that a Baptist church group may not use the waters of a public park to do open-air baptisms a la John the Baptist. Fortunately, it seems that several religious and civil-liberties groups have weighed in on the side of the besieged Baptists. "Wade in the water, children, the courts gonna trouble the waters...."

In this case, the Michigan Department of Health has insisted that six Amish families in Gladwin county install large septic systems which the Amish say are not only unnecessary, due to their simple way of life, but against their religious principles. (Other articles here, and elsewhere.) Although the story dates from 2002/2003, I haven't yet found a record of a final decision.

Texas versus the Unitarians

Pablo, Louise, and others have brought to my attention the recent controversy over Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of a Unitarian Universalist church in Denison, Texas. (News stories here, here, here, and elsewhere.) The comptroller seems to have used two litmus tests, depending on which story you read. One requires that a "church" must have a single, unified system of belief; the other requires belief in a "God, Gods, or a supreme being". As Pablo points out, many Baptist churches arguably would not meet the first requirement because of the longstanding aversion of many Baptists to any formally written "creed". (Jokes about this are a dime-a-dozen. For example: Q: "If you put two Baptists in a room, how many intepretations of the Bible do you get?" A: "At least three!" Or, Q: "Do you belong to any organized religion?" A: "No sir, I'm a Baptist!") And others have pointed out that certain varieties of Buddhism, for example, do not mandate belief in a Supreme Being.

The cold, hard facts? Strayhorn's decisions seem to be motivated, more than anything else, by the amount of favorable media attention a church is able to muster up. Political pressure, not any kind of principle, seems to be the most important factor in the decisions made by her and prior Texas Comptrollers. Consider:

From the Houston Chronicle article linked above: "Shortly after Sharp's staff granted the Ethical Society of Austin its religious status, the Austin American-Statesman ran a story about it with the headline "Godless Group Gets Religious Exemption. That same morning, Sharp reversed his staff and ordered no organization be granted religious status unless it believes in "God, Gods or a higher power." In the Texas courts, this became known as the "Supreme Being test."

From the Baptist Standard: "Texas Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn abruptly reversed course after her office's denial of tax-exempt status to a North Texas church because of its beliefs--or lack of them--attracted media attention."

No such favorable media attention has come to the rescue of North Texas Church of Freethought, wiccans in Copperas Cove, pagans in Bastrop. And so they remain officially "not religious".

I myself have mixed feelings about religious exemption from taxation. And I'm certainly aware that claims of religiosity can be frivolous. But there's got to be a better standard than mere political popularity.