Melissa Rogers

Texas Gives FLDS Parents Goals and Tasks to Regain Custody of Children

"In advance of court hearings that begin Monday, [Texas] Child Protective Services has drafted 10 goals and 14 tasks that [Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saints (FLDS)] parents will have to work toward to regain custody of their children."  Here's more from The Dallas Morning News:

CPS is proposing to give parents until next April to "provide a home free of persons who have or will abuse" children and "demonstrate the ability to protect the child[ren] from sexual abuse." The children will remain in state custody until a judge is satisfied that the parents have complied.

On Wednesday, CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins stressed that the guidelines – known as service plans – are silent about plural marriage and religious beliefs of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

"This is not about polygamy and it is not about religion," Mr. Crimmins said. "It is about child sexual abuse and our commitment to protect children."

The Deseret News has obtained copies of some of these "service plans."  (See top right-hand corner for pdf.)  Meanwhile, Salt Lake Tribune reports that "[t]hree FLDS fathers are demanding a judge in San Antonio return their children, saying Texas authorities acted in a 'blunderbuss' fashion to remove them from a polygamous sect's ranch. "

The Rollout of "We Get It!"

From one of the daybooks:

A coalition of pastors, evangelical leaders, national and state organizations, and policy makers hold a news conference on the "We Get It!" campaign, and to show "that they are united behind Biblical perspectives on the environment and the poor, and don't believe all the hype about global warming."

LOCATION: National Press Club, 14th and F Streets NW, Washington, D.C. -- May 15, 2008

PARTICIPANTS: Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga.; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance and Environmental Stewardship; James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy; James Dobson of Focus on the Family; singer Crystal Lewis; radio host Janet Parshall; theologian Wayne Grudem; singer Pat Boone; Joel Belz of God's World Publications; historian David Barton; climatologist David Legates; and Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty

The press conference took place at 10am.  The website for this effort is here.  The symbols of  the following organizations appear on the frontpage of the website: the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, Family Research Council, Institute on Religion and Democracy, Wallbuilders, Cornwall Alliance, and the Acton Institute.  A press release says that the campaign is seeking a million signatures for their declaration.

En Banc Rehearing Denied in Buono v. Kempthorne

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit slightly amended its decision in Buono v. Kempthorne but denied rehearing en banc in the case.  This is a case that involves a Latin cross that sits on a rock outcropping (known as Sunrise Rock) in the Mojave National Preserve.  This is a picture of the cross.  The Preserve is a national park in Southern California, about 90 percent of which is federally owned. 

The lawsuit has a complicated history that I won't attempt to summarize.  Howard Friedman has the details, if you'd like to see them.  Here's just a bit of the background.

A California district court found that the display of the cross on government land violated the Establishment Clause and ordered the government to remove the cross from its property.  The decision was appealed.  While that appeal was pending, the U.S. Congress enacted a statute directing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the land where the cross sits to a private organization in exchange for a piece of privately owned land that was located in another part of the Preserve.  The Ninth Circuit then upheld the district court's decision and later held that the land exchange did not alter the fact that the government was endorsing religion.  Here's a snippet from the opinion addressing the land exchange:

We previously held that the presence of the cross in the Preserve violates the Establishment Clause.  We also concluded that a reasonable observer aware of the history of the cross would know of the government's attempts to preserve it and the denial of access to other religious symbols.  Even a less informed reasonable observer would perceive governmental endorsement of the message, given that "[n]ational parklands and preserves embody the notion of government ownership," that the Sunrise Rock area is used as a public campground, and finally, because of "the ratio of publicly-owned to privately-owned land in the Preserve."  Nothing in the present posture of the case alters these earlier conclusions.  Under the statutory dictates and terms that presently stand, carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve -- like a donut hole with the cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement.  Nor does the proposed land exchange . . . end the improper government action.  Such a transfer cannot be validly executed without running afoul of the injunction.  (citations omitted)

The government then sought review of this decision by the full Ninth Circuit.  Yesterday, the full Ninth Circuit declined that request.  Five judges of the Ninth Circuit, however, dissented from the denial.  Judge O'Scannlain wrote the dissenting opinion.   Here is the first paragraph of that dissenting opinion:

The opinion in this case announced the rule that Congress cannot cure a government agency's Establishment Clause violation by ordering the sale of the land upon which a religious symbol previously was situated.  Because such a novel rule contravenes governing Supreme Court precedent, creates a split with the Seventh Circuit on multiple issues, and invites courts to encroach upon private citizens' rights under both the speech and religion clauses of the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent from our order rejecting rehearing en banc.

Will the government now ask the Supreme Court to hear this case?  And, if it does, will the Court agree to hear it?  I'll keep watching and let you know.  (Thanks to Howard Bashman for notification of the Ninth Circuit's decision.)

IRS Offers Phone Forum Regarding Electioneering Rules

From an IRS Exempt Organizations Update:

The IRS invites tax professionals and representatives of tax-exempt organizations to participate in a Phone Forum on Rules for Tax-Exempt Organizations During An Election Year.  The Forum is scheduled for June 9, 2008, and will be repeated June 10.  It will discuss the distinctions between political activity, lobbying and general advocacy, and which activities are permissible by 501(c)(3) charities, 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations, 501(c)(5) labor and agricultural/horticultural organizations, 501(c)(6) business leagues and trade associations, and 527 political organizations.  Registrants will have the opportunity to submit questions, in advance, to be answered during the sessions.

Both forums are being offered at no charge to participants, although space is limited and will be reserved on a first-come, first-served basis. Organizations with multiple representatives interested in participating are encouraged to register as a group, rather than as individuals.

You can sign up for the phone forum here.

SG Clement Leaving DoJ

The BLT reports that "Solicitor General Paul Clement announced today that he's resigning effective June 2."  The report notes that "[t]he Justice Department did not say where Clement is headed."  Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation is among the cases Clement successfully argued before the Supreme Court.

More on the Hagee Letter and Lunch

Laurie Goodstein gets some more details regarding the Rev. John Hagee's recent lunch with some Catholic leaders and how the letter came about.

“Republican activists have been working with [Hagee] over the last several weeks, giving him books and articles and getting him up to speed and away from the black legends about the Catholic Church," [Bill Donohue said.]  "I have to assume he’s acting sincerely, and now understands” that he has been recycling conspiracy theories.

At a news conference on Tuesday afternoon in North Bend, Wash., outside Seattle, Mr. McCain praised Mr. Hagee’s letter. “The fact that he has made an apology I think is very helpful,” Mr. McCain said. “Whenever someone apologizes for something they did wrong, then I think that that’s a laudable thing.”

Asked if he or his campaign were involved in the apology, Mr. McCain replied, “I certainly wasn’t.”  Mr. Hagee and his wife held a meeting on Friday to mend fences with about 12 Catholic political conservatives over lunch at a restaurant in Washington, said several attendees.

Deal W. Hudson, a member of Catholics for McCain and the director of the Web site InsideCatholic.com, said he had helped broker the meeting.

Mr. Hudson said that at the lunch Mr. Hagee explained that in his eschatology of the end times the Catholic Church could not possibly be the “whore” mentioned in Revelation and that he had been misunderstood. Mr. Hudson said the lunch ended on a positive note.

Not exactly your average lunchtime chit-chat, no?  Anyway, the report yesterday said that Hagee met with 22 Catholic leaders.  This report says that he met with about 12 Catholic political conservatives.  I'd be interested in knowing who attended the lunch.   And I'd be especially interested in hearing reactions to Hagee's letter from a wider range of Catholics. 

P.S.  After I wrote the last line in the post, it hit me.  Why should other Catholics respond to a letter that was addressed only to Bill Donohue?  I certainly would understand if other Catholics are waiting for Hagee to reach out to them.   Indeed, why did Hagee address the letter to Dononue only rather than to Catholic leaders of all theological and political stripes?  Yes, Donohue was the one who raised the hue and cry about Hagee's comments, but if Hagee truly believes he has made mistakes that affect all Catholics, then why didn't he make some attempt to address all Catholics?   And, if he did lunch only with Catholic political conservatives, why did he limit the group in this way, or allow it to be so limited?  It seems to me that, if this move is to be understood as more spiritual than partisan, Hagee needs to reach out to a wider cross-section of Catholics for meaningful dialogue, and he needs to do so quickly. 

Deflecting Criticisms Made by "An Evangelical Manifesto"

I noticed that Tony Perkins weighed in last week on "An Evangelical Manifesto":

Family Research Council president Perkins is co-author of the book Personal Faith, Public Policy. He says signers of the Manifesto may want good government and a godly environment, but they do not want to take the steps necessary to achieve those goals.

"Unfortunately, this takes on kind of a perspective of Christians who live in an ivory tower -- that they never are touched with the realities that we live in a world in which we have to come outside the walls of the church and influence society. It's kind of like [saying] 'I want to rid the world of evil; I just don't want to get involved in the issues,'" Perkins explains.

Drafters of the Manifesto, according to Perkins, made little effort to create Christian unity. "We each have our role to play in the kingdom, and I feel we should take the direction of [the Apostle] Paul," he suggests. "We shouldn't beat up on our own body and give ourselves a black eye. We ought to realize that we have different roles to play. And I encourage the theologians to continue to come up with ideas and speak to those issues, but they should be respectful to the other members of the body of Christ," Perkins contends.

Maybe Perkins needs to re-read the document.  It says, for example:

We affirm that to be Evangelical and to carry the name of Christ is to seek to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the kingdom of God, to bring these gifts into public life as a service to all, and to work with all who share these ideals and care for the common good.  Citizens of the City of God, we are resident aliens in the Earthly City.  Called by Jesus to be "in" the world but "not of" the world, we are fully engaged in public affairs, but never equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, class tribe, or national identity. . . .

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. . . . (emphasis added)

It says Christians should be engaged in public issues, but not in ways that are partisan, untruthful, arrogant, tribal, or nationalistic.   In other words, the issue isn't whether evangelicals should be involved in politics, but rather how they should be involved.  (Unfortunately, this confusion has been compounded by some in the media.  Many journalists have seemed to think that the document's criticism of a politicized faith is a call for evangelical disengagement from policy and politics.  Not so.)  It will be a shame if misinterpretations of the document allow people to skirt conversations about the errors the document describes.  Make no mistake, that is exactly the effect of these misinterpretations.

It also will be a shame if Perkins is not challenged for his suggestion that showing "respect" to other Christians apparently means not criticizing some of their actions.   Perkins cites some of the writings of Paul in an attempt to make his point.  In addition to speaking about the different parts and purposes of the Christian body, Paul said Christians should speak the truth in love.  I think these writings of Paul fit together -- we are a more faithful and authentic Christian community when, in a spirit of love, we are able to identify errors and call one another to repentance and reform according to Biblical principles.  To frown on that kind of thing or to seek to shut it down is terribly dangerous, as any believer in original sin should be quick to see.  Rather than deflect the criticisms the document makes, evangelicals ought to deal with them.

Senate Finance Committee Issues New Fact Sheet on Grassley Investigation

The Des Moines Register reports on a website sponsored by Kenneth Copeland Ministries to respond to the Grassley investigation.  The report also notes that the Senate Finance Committee has issued a "new fact sheet" on the investigation.

A new fact sheet from the Finance Committee about the investigation points out that churches do not have to annually file IRS documents asking for tax exemption.

However, they are subject to the same compliance and enforcement tax rules as other tax-exempt groups, except the IRS has a harder time enforcing the rules because of the lack of annual reports.

Unfortunately, the Des Moines Register did not post this fact sheet, and it does not appear on the Finance Committee's website yet.  I'll keep looking for it.

Caseworkers Allege Unnecessary Trauma and Harsh Treatment of FLDS Women and Children by State

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on some disturbing allegations about the Texas Child Protective Services' treatment of Fundamentalist Latter-day Saints (FLDS) mothers and children in the weeks immediately following the April raid of the FLDS compound.

    Mental health professionals who helped care for FLDS women and children in the weeks after an April raid on the YFZ Ranch describe conditions and treatment they perceived as harsh and unnecessary.
    "Never in all my life, and I am one of the older ladies, have I been so ashamed of being a Texan and seeing what and how our government agencies treat people," wrote one employee of Hill Country Community Mental Health and Mental Retardation Center in an unsigned statement.
    Texas contracts with Hill Country to provide mental health services during disasters. Staff members met with the center's board of trustees last week, leaving them "spellbound." The board has gathered nine written statements critical of Child Protective Services.
    Chairman John Kight said he wants state legislators and the governor to hear the employees' stories. "You have damaged these children for their lives," he said. "This is an agency that looks like it's gone out of control." A Texas CPS spokesman acknowledged the allegations were "very serious" and said they are being investigated. But he noted the women and children were held at a historic fort and a convention center in San Angelo in an unusual emergency situation.

The Salt Lake Tribune provides links to the statements made by the caseworkers.  The San Antonio Express-News also has a story on the allegations that includes the reflections of Kevin Dinnin, the president of Baptist Children and Family Services (BCFS)  "who served as incident commander at the shelter under a contract between his agency and the state."  Dinnin "said he couldn't confirm many of the allegations made by the MHMR workers."  The work of BCFS is discussed in more detail here.

Look below the fold for some of the details from the caseworkers' statements and the responses the state has offered thus far to those allegations.  These details appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune story. 

Hagee Expresses "Deep Regret" Regarding Catholic Commentary

"John Hagee, the controversial Evangelical pastor who endorsed John McCain, will issue a letter of apology to Catholics today for inflammatory remarks he has made, including accusing the Roman Catholic Church of supporting Adolf Hitler and calling it “The Great Whore.” (See a copy of the letter PDF.)"  Here's more from Washington Wire:

“Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful,” Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. “After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism.”

In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee’s biggest critics, Hagee pledges “a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Hagee met with 22 Catholic leaders in Washington on Friday to apologize for his comments, according to a source familiar with the meeting. Despite the McCain’s condemnation of Hagee’s anti-Catholic remarks, the campaign had no role in that meeting or Tuesday’s apology, according to the source who said it was something Hagee did because he felt it was necessary.

Donohue is expected to release a letter in response today, accepting Hagee’s apology.

This sounds like a step in the right direction, although I would certainly like to hear from Catholics other than Bill Donohue.

As the piece notes, this issue is relevant to John McCain's candidacy because McCain sought Hagee's endorsement and has continued to say that he is glad to have it, even though he has conceded that it "probably" was a mistake to ask for the endorsement.*  (If that does not make much sense to you, you are certainly not alone.) 

Because candidates seek endorsements for political reasons, it is legitimate to ask McCain about policy issues Hagee has addressed.  The next round of questions for McCain should explore areas of agreement and disagreement regarding Hagee's views on the Middle East.

*  Here is the relevant snippet from an interview with McCain:

“So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?” asked host George Stephanopoulos.

“Oh, probably, sure. But I admire and respect Dr. Hagee’s leadership of the — of his church,” McCain said, later adding: “I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything.”