IT'S HUMAN RIGHTS, STUPID
(with Update)
(with Update)
The Democratic strategist James Carville famously said to his staff in the 1990s campaigns, "It's the economy, stupid." The Democrats won in 1992 and 1996.
In the schism in South Carolina, the fundamental issue was, and still is, human rights. It is not basically about property, freedom of religion, uniqueness of Christ, local sovereignty, or any of the many other reasons thrown up for the break of 2012. Let's be honest. Everything gets back to whether we want women and homosexuals to have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. The Episcopal Church struggled for a half century working out equality for and inclusion of African Americans, women, and homosexuals in the life of the Church. This was a movement for human rights. I call it the great democratic revolution of the Episcopal Church. However, a minority of people in the Episcopal Church remained opposed to the revolution, at least to the reforms for women and homosexuals. The intransigent ultra-conservatives who made the five diocesan schisms against the Church rejected equality for and inclusion of women and homosexuals. Hence, the five schisms including that of South Carolina.
What brings this up again is a new court paper. On November 10, 2017, the Diocese of South Carolina side submitted to the South Carolina Supreme Court, "Brief for 106 Religious Leaders as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents' Petititon for Rehearing." Find it here . This was meant to support DSC's three petitions for rehearing submitted to the SCSC on September 1, 2017. It argues that local churches must be free to own their own properties outright.
The brief is twenty pages of text followed by 106 signatures of religious "leaders" in South Carolina. Exactly one clergyman of DSC signed, the Rev. Gregory Kronz (chair of the bishop's search committee that chose Mark Lawrence). More than half of the 106 signers, 60 to be exact, were Baptists. Almost all the rest were from other congregational churches.
The Palmetto Family Council in South Carolina is a highly conservative political action committee devoted to enacting reactionary social policies in the state government, particularly by passing measures against freedom and equality for women and for homosexuals. Check out their website home page here . Ever since the SCSC's August 2 decision favoring the pro-human-rights Episcopal Church, the PFC has carried out a robust campaign to arouse public opposition to the decision and pressure the justices to backtrack. They framed it as a campaign for freedom of religion. Actually it is a campaign against equal rights for women and homosexuals. They encouraged religious figures to enlist in the campaign online. See the list of supporters here . As of now, 113 men and 1 woman have signed.
106 (105 men and 1 woman) signed the amici brief. 114 signed the PFC list. Are they the same names? Close, but not exactly. In fact, 70 of the 106 signatories of the amici paper were also among the 114 on the PFC form. Thus, 70 names are on both lists, that is, more than half the names on each. Thus, I wonder about what role the PFC played in this amici move. Is it just a coincidence that 70 names from the PFC list showed up in the amici brief?
There are two big problems affecting the credibility of this amici brief. In the first, it is built on untruths. The very first sentence is not true: "For over 300 years, since before the Founding of the Nation, members of the Respondents' congregations contributed land, money, and labor in reliance on settled South Carolina law---only to have this Court divest them of their property based on a canon unilaterally adopted centuries later by a national denomination." The problem is the word "unilaterally." The truth is that the Episcopal Church adopted the Dennis Canon in 1979. Canon law is automatically applicable in all dioceses. It is law, not suggestion. The Diocese of South Carolina formally adopted the Canon in 1987. A convention in 2010 voted (illegally) to revoke the law. In other words, the diocese made the Dennis Canon part and parcel of the local church government, at least from 1987 to 2010. All parishes were part of this. 29 of the 36 parishes in question explicitly acceded on their own to the Dennis Canon. This fact was confirmed by four of the five justices of the state supreme court (only Toal differed) in the Aug. 2 decision. Thus, the Dennis Canon was not imposed on South Carolina "unilaterally."
The second big problem with the amici brief is that the issue of property, that the signatories raised, is irrelevant to congregational institutions such as Baptist and other independent associations where local churches always own their own properties outright (I know whereof I speak; I spent my first 21 years in an independent, fundamentalist Baptist church). Congregational pastors arguing that churches should own their own property is redundant. Congregation-governed churches have no superior body over them that could possibly make a property issue. Southern Baptists do have a system of regional "associations" but these are purely administrative and have no authority to interfere in the internal affairs of the self-governing congregation. Occasionally they take action to enforce common policies but the only real power they have is to expel an errant congregation from the association. This happened in my county recently when a Southern Baptist church decided to ordain women as deacons. The local association threatened to expel the church if they did. The church did and the association did. This made absolutely no difference to the church that went right on, with their women deacons, and without the association. This is the way congregational churches work. Baptist churches are congregational. The Episcopal Church is not congregational.
Let's be honest about this. As this amici paper indicates so obviously, the fundamental issue between the "disaffiliated" diocese and the Episcopal Church is human rights. The schism was not motivated by ownership of property. Property is obviously an issue, but not at the heart of the matter. So, trying to disguise this, or hide behind other issues in court will not work. And, this is exactly what the justices of the South Carolina Supreme Court saw. It is what guided them to their decision on August 2 in favor of the Church. It is highly unlikely they will backtrack. They know the issues at stake. They are not stupid, and we should not be either.
UPDATE, Nov. 13, 5 p.m.:
Now we know. It was the Palmetto Family Council that organized the signatories of the amicus brief of Nov. 10. DSC posted an announcement about the brief today. Find it here .
Here is more evidence, as if we need it, that DSC has dissolved into frantic flailing about grasping at straws in a desperate effort to salvage something of their vanishing dream. They called the signatories "a diverse group." That is humorous. I encourage you to read the list yourself. It is anything but diverse.
The blurb also continues the outrageous untruth that DSC has been promoting since August 2 that there is no agreement among the justices: "There is no legal consensus among the Justices." The truth is there is indeed a clear majority of justices in agreement that the Dennis Canon went into effect in the state (4 of 5 justices), and a majority (3 of 5 justices) that the 29 parishes voluntarily acceded to the Canon and therefore recognized the Episcopal Church's overriding trust interest in the local properties. In the supreme court, the majority rules. It does not have to be by unanimous opinion. In fact, on Aug. 2, the majority ruled clearly that 29 parishes remain under trust control of TEC and the Church diocese. There was nothing unclear about that.
The amicus brief continued the fiction that the supreme court has thrown church property law into confusion: "the Court's fractured decision leaves church property law in this state in utter confusion." Baloney. There is no "confusion" in South Carolina about church property. If there is any confusion, it is on the part of the people who lost in the court, not the court.
Something else that should disturb us is the fact that this amicus brief came after mediation had begun. Mediation is a negotiation period that assumes a cease-fire in the legal war. A hand-grenade like an amicus brief could threaten to blow up the whole thing. The fact that one side would do such as this diminishes credibility in their good will toward a peaceful settlement. This leaves us wondering if DSC truly wants a mediated resolution to the litigation.
Once again, the amicus brief is so far out it is ridiculous. Congregational pastors serve churches that own their own properties outright. Period. There is no threat that anyone else will ever lay claim to their properties. Therefore, I say again, this ultra-conservative attack on the August 2 state supreme court decision is motivated by deeper factors, namely to keep women and homosexuals from enjoying the same rights and opportunities in American society that other people have. As Carville would say, It's human rights, stupid.
UPDATE, Nov. 13, 5 p.m.:
Now we know. It was the Palmetto Family Council that organized the signatories of the amicus brief of Nov. 10. DSC posted an announcement about the brief today. Find it here .
Here is more evidence, as if we need it, that DSC has dissolved into frantic flailing about grasping at straws in a desperate effort to salvage something of their vanishing dream. They called the signatories "a diverse group." That is humorous. I encourage you to read the list yourself. It is anything but diverse.
The blurb also continues the outrageous untruth that DSC has been promoting since August 2 that there is no agreement among the justices: "There is no legal consensus among the Justices." The truth is there is indeed a clear majority of justices in agreement that the Dennis Canon went into effect in the state (4 of 5 justices), and a majority (3 of 5 justices) that the 29 parishes voluntarily acceded to the Canon and therefore recognized the Episcopal Church's overriding trust interest in the local properties. In the supreme court, the majority rules. It does not have to be by unanimous opinion. In fact, on Aug. 2, the majority ruled clearly that 29 parishes remain under trust control of TEC and the Church diocese. There was nothing unclear about that.
The amicus brief continued the fiction that the supreme court has thrown church property law into confusion: "the Court's fractured decision leaves church property law in this state in utter confusion." Baloney. There is no "confusion" in South Carolina about church property. If there is any confusion, it is on the part of the people who lost in the court, not the court.
Something else that should disturb us is the fact that this amicus brief came after mediation had begun. Mediation is a negotiation period that assumes a cease-fire in the legal war. A hand-grenade like an amicus brief could threaten to blow up the whole thing. The fact that one side would do such as this diminishes credibility in their good will toward a peaceful settlement. This leaves us wondering if DSC truly wants a mediated resolution to the litigation.
Once again, the amicus brief is so far out it is ridiculous. Congregational pastors serve churches that own their own properties outright. Period. There is no threat that anyone else will ever lay claim to their properties. Therefore, I say again, this ultra-conservative attack on the August 2 state supreme court decision is motivated by deeper factors, namely to keep women and homosexuals from enjoying the same rights and opportunities in American society that other people have. As Carville would say, It's human rights, stupid.
