In a shocking development, Editor of the Virginian-Pilot Don Luzzatto tells religious folks that, when it comes to involving themselves in government change, there’s no room at the inn. His column entitled “When Ruled by Religiosity” sounds pretty anti-MLK.
“The church has no more business using the state as an agent of its values than the state has using religion that way.
The First Amendment makes that clear.”
I used to think the Pilot supported the efforts of Rev. Martin Luther King, his march on Washington, and his call for civil rights legislation. Religious leaders were certainly a driving force in the quest for civil rights.
The Luzzatto docrine doesn’t think that religious involvement in governmental change for civil rights was a good idea. At least, he can’t think that with what he wrote about religious involvement in recent issues involving abortion.
“Religion exists to change people’s hearts; when it depends on the state to control behavior, it is doing something else.”
Sounds to me like an argument against the Civil Rights Act. Actually, Luzzatto was specifically addressing the latest battles over abortion in Richmond and the anti-Catholic bias in the Obama Administration. But, to me, I can’t see how you can’t relate his column to the role religious leaders played in the civil rights movement.
Anyone who denies the involvement of religious communities in the civil rights movement is either lying or just plain wrong. Luzzatto sounds like he would’ve elbowed Rev. Martin Luther King right off the podium.
So, for the benefit of the doubt, we have two possible options here. Either Mr. Luzzatto and his cohorts have deep opposition to Rev. Martin Luther King and his fight for civil rights, or Luzzatto et al are hypocrites who love religious involvement in government when they agree, and want it banned when they disagree.
I can’t tell which, but perhaps he’ll write a follow-up article explaining how his opposition to religions lobbying “the state to control behavior” doesn’t include when religions did just that in the 60s. How can he applaud Rev. Martin Luther King’s March on Washington, while telling other religious leaders they have no business lobbying government for their own civil rights fights?
After all, at the core, deciding who is and isn’t a person is the basis of both issues, and if Mr. Luzzatto’s stance is that the religious can be involved in one issue but not the other, he’s going to have a hard time explaining why.
