The IRD is not such a big deal

The American conservative movement treats the IRD like the bladder on a set of bagpipes, pumping air into it when certain notes must be hit, leaving it more or less empty the rest of the time. At the moment, it serves no real purpose,

The Diocese of New York on Saturday passed a resolution at its annual convention that


calls upon the General Convention of the Episcopal Church to authorize creation of a joint task force of the affected denominations to:

1) Assess the threat to religious freedom posed by the activities of the IRD and related groups
2) Develop recommendations to mitigate such threats, and
3) Ascertain the cost to the three denominations to date of litigation to prevent the alienation of church property and other assets

.

As readers of the Cafe may know, I have written extensively about the IRD, its activities and its sources of funding. I think the organization at this point exists almost entirely to undermine the mainline Protestant Churches. I say almost, because the IRD doesn't care much for Muslims, either. What the IRD desires, however, and what it achieves are two different things, and that is why I have mixed feelings about this resolution.

The American conservative movement treats the IRD like the bladder on a set of bagpipes, pumping air into it when certain notes must be hit, leaving it more or less empty the rest of the time. At the moment, it serves no real purpose, in part because the schismatic Episcopal churches no longer need it to act as their financial agent, and in part because the world now sees it coming. People know the IRD has a special relationship with Howard Ahmanson, an extremist on just about anybody's yardstick, and that it is driven by a political rather than a religious calculus.

This, in its way, can be quite helpful. The fact that Ephraim Radner was a member of the IRD's board of directors while serving on the Covenant Design team has done much to undermine the credibility of the covenant process. However, members of the mainline denominations have a tendency to overestimate the influence of the IRD. (Whatever you may have read, it had almost nothing to do with the fact that Kevin Thew-Forrester did not get consents sufficient to become the Bishop of Northern Michigan.)

I haven't kept up as closely with the IRD as I did four or five years ago, but my strong sense is that it is no longer an important player in the various upheavals within the mainline churches. Its activities in that regard are probably not worth the energy it would require to investigate them. We run the risk of amplifying the bark of what is now a very small dog.

Father Jake has written about this issue as well, and he sees the matter differently than I do.

Posted by Jim Naughton on November 15, 2010 2:22 PM | |
Comments (5)

Citizens United has also paved the way for billionaires to influence the government in far more direct ways.

Posted by Bill Carroll [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2010 2:59 PM

I think Jim's comment misses the point of the resolution. It is not about "investigating" or stoppping IRD. It is about examining what constitutes an assault on freedom of religion. The full text of the resolution, available at www.AnglicanExaminer.com, makes that clear. It should also be noted that the resolution very clearly makes reference to "related groups," many of which are alive and well and still wreaking havoc.

As the brouhaha over the "Ground Zero mosque" makes clear, the biggest threat to religious freedom in the U.S. doesn't come from the government but from other citizens.

Everyone has the right to criticize, advocate, and provide assistance to dissident groups, but no one has the right to frustrate constitutionally protected activity. That is why church arson is a federal crime. Arson is illegal everywhere, but church arson interfers with the free exercise of religion. So do bogus property disputes, and an interstate collaboration for the purpose of generating such disputes may run afoul of a number of other federal statutes as well.

The resolution calls for the creation of an interdenominational task force to bring the best legal minds in our three denomination to bear on the question of how we make more effective use of our constitutional rights. Our case-by-case litigation is a reactive strategy (necessary, I admit, but reactive nonetheless). We've been counting on the courts to uphold our canons and our property claims. We should also ask them to uphold our constitutional rights. Not just our church, but our whole society will be the better for it.
--Donn Mitchell

Posted by Donn Mitchell [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2010 6:35 PM

I am actually glad to see some awareness of the IRD on the part of the church. When in the past, I've mentioned the IRD, most people have looked at me blankly.

Such groups like to travel below the surface, and I think that shining some light on them doesn't hurt anything. They still don't mean us well, but if their effects are studied and determined to be weak -- all the better.

MEM - please sign your name next time you post a comment -- thx ~~ed.

Posted by MEM [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2010 8:56 PM

The First Amendment, like the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, applies only to government activity. Until the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted it didn't even apply to state governments, only to the federal government. Private individuals cannot violate the First Amendment even if they want to. The Constitutional authority for the Church Arson Prevention Act is the Commerce Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3), not the First Amendment.

Posted by Paul Powers [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2010 10:45 PM

As the brouhaha over the "Ground Zero mosque" makes clear, the biggest threat to religious freedom in the U.S. doesn't come from the government but from other citizens.

At the risk of being obvious, I think that's entirely dependent on WHO constitutes the goverment. Just a few years ago, Quakers were being investigated for their anti-war activities by the government. And now, candidates who actually RAN on the "Ground Zero Mosque" have been elected to Congress.

I will agree that citizens (the electorate) as a WHOLE, don't have enough of a commitment to vote AGAINST religious demogoguery, though. (Sigh)

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux [TypeKey Profile Page] | November 15, 2010 11:21 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space