The artwork on this note card was created by 5768 WRJ Art Calendar artist Césan d’Ornellas Levine.
On Wednesday, the Washington Post wrote about the topics most clergy members discuss from the pulpit as a way to illustrate that the issues most associated with communities of faith -- reproductive rights and LGBT rights/same-sex marriage, due much in part to the Religious Right -- is not what is actually happening on the ground.
Using the nomenclature from the chart, we clearly see that abortion and homosexuality are among the most discussed topics, but it is encouraging to see that hunger and poverty and the importance of voting -- key components of a strong democracy -- register the highest.
However, two topics that are the most striking for me are "government policies restricting religious liberty" and "presidential candidates" because of they could mean for church-state separation and religious freedom.
The Reform Movement has long taken the position that the rights affirmed in the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment (the Establishment Clause, church-state separation; the Free Exercise Clause, religious freedom), are best for both religious communities and the government. As a 1965 URJ resolution states,
"While as citizens, of course, we accept and respect the laws of the land, including those laws which include provisions as to which we were and are apprehensive, we re-affirm our long-established position that the principle of separation of church and state is best for both church and state and is indispensable for the preservation of that spirit of religious liberty which is a unique blessing of American democracy. This principle is shared by forward-looking elements of all faiths."
We support robust religious freedom rights, though we are concerned when religious freedom is used to categorically challenge civil rights laws and protections. We support robust church-state separation, knowing that even though, for example, houses of worship taking government money could benefit the community in the short-term, in the long-term is detrimental to both church and state (in addition to being prohibited by the Constitution).
Church-state separation extends to a prohibition on politicking from the pulpit. Due our deep respect for and commitment to religious freedom and separation between church and state, houses of worship and clergy are accorded numerous unique rights (tax exemption a key example), but that means must remain non-partisan at all times. As explained in our elections Dos and Don'ts for Congregations, houses of worship can host candidate forums and voter registration drives, clergy can discuss numerous social justice topics, but they are not allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit. This protects houses of worship and fosters a welcoming environment for congregants of all views and backgrounds.
Because the data reported on in the Washington Post article does not give the context for how these topics are being discussed by clergy, calling into question the constitutionality of these sermons is not on the table. It does, however, serve as an important reminder of how our fundamental freedoms of church-state separation and religious free exercise come into play in a real, tangible way.