December 11, 2000

Eagle Eye on Austin - Bills Being Filed Fast and Furious

The unrelenting pace of pre-filing continued this past week in Austin as lawmakers rushed to submit legislation prior to the beginning of the 77th Session. Leaving no stone unturned, Texas Eagle Forum has looked at every bill filed thus far, carefully singling out both those that are praiseworthy, those that are dangerous, and those that need to be denounced as, well, just plain silly.

Among the praiseworthy bills filed this past week is H.B. 286 by Rep. Phil King (R-Weatherford). This bill would ease the burden on home school students and students from non-accredited private schools who want to attend college. At present, a number of colleges hold students who received secondary education at a home school or non-accredited private high school to a higher standard than students who received diplomas from state accredited schools. Tim Lambert, President of the Texas Home School Coalition, recognizes the need for this legislation: "Most of the [colleges] in Texas have what I call a double-standard. They require private school and home school students to take additional exams and score higher on college entrance exams than students from accredited schools." In 1999, Texas A&M became the first major university in Texas to give students from non-accredited high schools equal standing with their peers from accredited schools. The majority of Texas colleges and universities, however, have not followed suit. This bill would level the playing field for students from these overwhelmingly religion-based schools. Please call Rep. King today and voice your support for H.B. 286.

Rep. King's number in Austin is 512-463-0738.

Among the dangerous bills filed this past week is H.B. 295 by Representative Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston). This bill prohibits employers from inquiring into a potential applicant's sexual orientation. Although it does exempt tax-exempt religious organizations such as churches and religious schools, it does not exempt businesses owned by individuals who object to homosexuality on religious grounds. The net effect of this legislation would be to enforce a "don't ask, don't tell" rule on religious business owners. Business owners already tread on difficult terrain when hiring because of federal laws dictating "non-discrimination" in employment practices. This bill serves to tighten an already suffocating noose around the necks of religious business owners. Homosexuality is NOT an unavoidable condition; it is NOT comparable to race or ethnicity; it is NOT irreversible; it IS, however, a deviant lifestyle that individuals enter into by CHOICE. As such, it deserves no "protected" or "favored" status under the law. Please call your representative and voice your opposition to H.B. 295.

As the sole openly homosexual member of the Texas House, Representative Glen Maxey has a reputation for promoting some rather odd pieces of legislation. He has once again demonstrated his propensity for the bizarre with his "Harm Reduction Program" aimed at reducing the incidence of HIV among drug users by providing "free and anonymous exchange of used needles and syringes for an equal number of new needles and syringes." Apparently Mr. Maxey has mistaken Texas for a Swiss canton.

Commentary - Lieberman as Religious Slim-Fast

In a recent article in First Things magazine, Rabbi Marc Gellman of Temple Beth Torah in Dix Hills, New York notes that the selection of Senator Joseph Lieberman as the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party marks the dawning of a new age of acceptance of religion in the political arena. Gellman states, "The old way of separating one's religion from one's politics is dead and gone with Joe." He then goes on to praise the way that Lieberman has contributed a religious bent to his politics by doing such things as observing the Jewish Sabbath and even introducing the word nonschlepper to the American political debate. Gellman also mentions that, now that Lieberman has been accepted as a religious figure, Jews should feel free to vote against him based on his policy choices. The alternative, of course, would be that Jews must - Lemming-like - vote en masse for Lieberman solely because of his faith.

Perhaps my view is jaded due to partisan preference, but I am unable to ascertain how Gellman equates Joe Lieberman's faithful observance of the Sabbath (even while on the campaign trail, no less) with a renaissance of piety in politics. Indeed, Lieberman may actually have played a role in the ongoing trivialization of religious sentiments in the political arena. This argument may be difficult to make in so brief a space, so I will attack the two primary fallacies in Gellman's thinking head-on.

First, Gellman equates the observance of outward religious symbols with true Biblical faith. Few can argue that politicians of all stripes have historically used religious language and symbolism to communicate directly with the electorate. If I had a nickel for every time the words "God bless America" have been used to cap a political speech, I would be writing to you from my home in the Bahamas. The significance of Lieberman's candidacy is not found in the fact that he uses religious language and observes religious traditions; the true novelty introduced by Lieberman is the open use of religious language and symbolism outside the predominant Protestant (and some would argue Catholic) mainstream. For the first time on the national stage, the Judaic faith has been fully embraced by a major party candidate. The use of different religious symbols, however, does not necessarily indicate that the "old way" of separating faith from politics has fallen by the wayside. It merely indicates that we have expanded the vocabulary of "religious talk" in our public arena.

This brings me to the second fallacy in Gellman's argument: namely, he fails to acknowledge that faith will affect not only one's language and rituals, but will alter one's opinions and values as well. In other words, true faith would force one to grapple more seriously with tangible policy choices. Many liberals and conservatives would stop at this point and note that the quality of one's faith cannot be measured by the nature of one's policy preferences. True, but I would argue that, if a politician makes a public claim of faith, then the public has the right to ask that politician to justify his policy preferences within the context of that faith. If a candidate publicly confesses to be a devout Roman Catholic and yet chooses to embrace a pro-abortion position, then the public must ask that candidate why he has broken with his faith's orthodox theology on that issue. Unfortunately, no one is asking these tough questions of the pro-choice senior Senator from Connecticut. If faith matters, then it must play a role in every facet of one's life.

Our culture has slowly relegated religion to the status of a personal hobby. We are told to applaud when a candidate talks about God and goes to church, and at the same time admonished not to insert "religion" into policy debates. Many people of faith have accepted this argument, and as a result policies are often judged not on the basis of their morality, but on the basis of their usefulness alone. Unfortunately, the same can be said of the way many Americans choose their leaders. Without asking candidates for public office about the role of their faith in guiding policy decisions, we end up getting fed the equivalent of religious slim-fast.

Please contact us if you would like to request information, or place a friend on our e-mail list.

Phone: 972-250-0734
Fax: 972-380-2853
e-mail: ryanbangert@texaseagle.org
web: www.texaseagle.org