ANALYSIS: European Sunday Weekly Rest Day Legislation Remains Unlawful

“This matter deserves a full debate engaging all the parties concerned and in particular the minority groups so that the legal position is made clear and that the possible future religious ramifications of this proposed Legislation are considered in light of the aims and objectives of the European Union.”  Special thanks to the late Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi who read the earlier RLTV post on the proposed legislation and put us in contact with Dr. Brighton Kavaloh, and to Dr. Kavaloh for sharing his timely research.  Editor

Dr. Brighton G Kavaloh is a Postgraduate Law Researcher in European Legislative Studies in London, England and a Seventh-day Adventist minister.

 Click here for a print-friendly PDF version of this article.

Introduction

The main purpose for writing this article is to respond to the relentless attempts in recent times to legislate in the European Union, Sunday as an official weekly rest day. The lobbyists championing this cause have been among other associations, the Roman Catholic Bishops (COMECE), some Protestants church representatives and certain Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).[1] I will now provide a synopsis of the background on this issue and show how it has developed to the present day.

The Working Time Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993, Article 5, second paragraph stipulated that a minimum weekly rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday.’[2] Sunday as a weekly rest day was enshrined into European Community Law, but it was annulled by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) after a legal challenge from the United Kingdom government on 12 November 1996.

Based on the Court’s application of Article 137 (ex Article 118a) of the Treaty of the European Union, it was concluded that in so far as the Council was concerned “the connection between the health and safety of workers and the requirement that the weekly rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday’ in the second sentence of Article 5 of the Directive, had not been established.”[3] There was no satisfactory explanation given “why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week.”[4] And accordingly the ruling was that the sentence be annulled.

In September 2004, the Commission submitted a proposal to review Council Directive 2003/88/EC. The European Parliament voted the submission at its first reading in May 2005. After a three year period of stalemate, an agreement was only reached in June 2008 at which seven MEPs supported by Catholic Bishops initiated an amendment aiming yet again at attempting to include a Sunday weekly rest day clause previously annulled. The new amendments were not entertained even after the first and the second reading in the House of Parliament due to procedural reasons.[5] And since then, five parliamentarians on 2 February 2009 launched a Written Declaration to lobby the House for its adoption. A majority of 394 MEPs need to sign, before 7 May 2009. The main purpose of the Declaration is to call on “the Member States and the EU institutions to protect Sunday, as a weekly rest day in the forthcoming national and EU working time legislation in order to enhance the protection of worker’s health and the reconciliation of work and family.”[6] I will now proceed to argue that the attempts to enshrine Sunday as a weekly rest day in the European Community remains unlawful, in spite of the launch of a Written Declaration initiative.

Background

The European weekly rest day legislation initially was linked more to the health and safety measures of employees in the work place. The legal basis for it was the Treaty of the European Community Article 137 (previously Article 118a). The Community organisation was to support and complement the endeavours of the Member States to improving primarily ‘the working environment to protect workers’ health and safety.[7] To accomplish its objectives, the Council was to “adopt by means of directives, minimum requirements for gradual implementation…”[8]

The Council of the European Community adopted a Resolution on 21 December 1987 entitled “Safety, hygiene and health at work.”[9] There was no link made between the protection of the worker’s health and safety and Sunday as a weekly rest day nor was it raised as an issue. This argument is supported by the Council’s own affirmation when it officially adopted the measure as a formal Directive on 12 June 1989. It stated that “the objective of this Directive is to introduce measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.”[10] However, Sunday as a weekly rest day with a sociological connotation in Europe began to emerge when the Commission requested the Economic and Social Committee (hereafter ECSOC) to appraise the elements of the Community Charter of Basic Rights. [11] In order to expedite time, ECSOC’s recommendation was for a list to be drawn of basic social principles to be enacted and adhered to by all Member States.

Furthermore, the Community Institutions were to “take the procedural steps necessary to ensure that the scope of these basic principles and rights is interpreted with due respect for the standards already recognised in other international social legal instruments.”[12] The International Labour Conventions 14[13] and 106[14] were cited and reference was made to the weekly rest period but no particular day was suggested. Further, the Council of Europe, Social Charter, Article 2(5) stipulated that “The weekly rest period shall, whenever possible, coincide with the day of the week established as a day of rest by the traditions or customs of the country or district.”[15] Article 2(5) again did not specify the actual week rest day but left it to each country to determine.

The International Labour Convention 106 noted that “The traditions and customs of religious minorities shall, as far as possible, be respected.”[16] The short guide to the Social Charter provided an addendum on respect of Article 2(5) that cited Sunday as the day which all states that had ratified the Charter should incorporate as an official day of rest. At this point, not all Member States had ratified the Charter and therefore the European Parliament could not legislate it. It was left to the discretion for each Member State to decide on the issue.

On 5 October 1990, the Council approached ECSOC for its opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on the organisation of working time. ECSOC made reference to health as defined by the World Health Organisation which was to be understood as signifying the physical, mental and social conditions and in so doing linked the worker’s health and safety measure to Sunday as a weekly rest day.”[17] In justifying this stance, ECSOC stated that “in countries with Christian traditions the day of rest has to be Sunday.”[18]

The European Parliament debate on the subject of organisation of working time pertaining to Sunday as a rest day followed. I will now provide brief extracts of some arguments put forward by MEPs.

Van Dijk (NL) argued that “The premise that night work ought in principle to be forbidden is, in my opinion, much more important than preserving Sunday as a day of rest. After all, you do not get sicker through working during the day on Sunday than on Mondays, but the same cannot be said of about night work.”[19]

Pronk [PPE]-(NL) said “It remains a day for the family. It is a day of rest in our increasingly hectic societies. We have tabled amendments on this point. We consider it important to preserve that day of rest. After all, one cannot sacrifice everything to society. Certain values remain that we always keep sacrosanct.” [20]

And, Van Der Waal (NI)-(NL) said “I do not wish to plead for EC regulations of Sundays. Sunday legislation is eminently a matter for Governments of Member States and ought to remain so. But it would be important if, in the Directive before us, it were clearly stated that Sunday, as the Christian day of rest, as God’s day, merited a place apart in the internal market.”[21]

However, Papandreou, a Member of the Commission (GR) argued “I do agree, of course, that the week end is the usual acceptable time for rest but given that the proposal is concerned with the health and safety of workers and that there is no direct connection between heath and safety and the weekend. I do not think that we can rightly establish this assumption in the proposal.”[22]

After considering all the arguments, Parliament and the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 inserting Article 5b which included the provision that the minimum rest period ‘shall in principle include Sunday”.[23]

The Sunday weekly rest day in Europe was by law anchored into the European Union in 1993. It must be noted that recital 10 stated that “with the respect to the weekly rest period, due account should be taken of the diversity of cultural, ethnic, religious and other factors in the Member states.”[24] It was “ultimately for each Member State to decide whether Sunday should be included in the weekly rest period, and if so to what extent.”[25] Here again the issue of Sunday law legislation was left for the Member States to decide. But no sooner was the Council Directive in operation, that it faced a legal challenge from the British Government.

Legal Challenge

In March 1994, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland brought an action under Article 230 (ex Article 173) of the Treaty for the annulment of Working Time Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993.[26] The UK Government requested the European Court of Justice to annul the Directive in its entirety or failing which in the alternative to repeal selected provisions which included Article 5, second paragraph (the minimum weekly rest period shall ‘in principle include Sunday’). However, the Council’s rebuttal was that the UK application was unfounded.

The UK Government based its legal challenge on four pleas alleging, (1) defective legal basis (2) breach of the principle of proportionality (3) misuse of powers and (4) infringement of essential procedural requirements.[27] In the first instance, the applicant observed that “Directives adopted under Article 118a(2) of the EEC Treaty must have a genuine and objective link between health and safety, on the one hand, and the situation to be governed by those Directives, on the other.”[28] However, it argued that “In the present case, the link between health and safety is too tenuous for the Directive to be properly based on Article 118a of the EEC Treaty. Thus, for example, the link between the rule of Sunday rest … on the one hand, and on the other, health and safety of workers is as remote as the link between the health of employees and generous conditions of pay.”[29]

However, the UK and the Council of the European Union both recognised the social dimension of the Directive as it comes under the title of Social Policy. Whereas the UK saw a dichotomy between Article 118a, health and safety on the one hand and the social dimension on the other, the Council did not. The UK argued that “the legislator should explain that numerous elements of the Directive were concerned with improvement of the living and working conditions of employees and/or with the social dimension of the internal market rather than with health and safety considerations.”[30] The Council stated however that “any measure adopted on the basis of the Article 118a will thus necessarily pursue a ‘social’ objective” due to Chapter 1 of Title VIII of the Treaty which includes Article 118a.[31]

The most crucial point to bear in mind, especially as relates to the current debate to legislate Sunday as an official weekly rest day by the European Parliament is to seriously consider the legal reasoning and subsequent judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 12 November 1996.

The European Court of Justice in this leading case considered both arguments and counter arguments from the UK (applicants) and the Council of the European Union (respondents) respectively. It summed up that “In order to deal with those arguments, a distinction must be drawn between the second sentence of Article 5 of the directive and its other provisions.”[32] There was a clear intention by the Court to seek to separate Article 5 second sentence.

The Court concluded in its judgement as follows:

“As to the second sentence of Article 5, while the question whether to include Sunday in the weekly rest period is ultimately left to the assessment of Member States, having regard, in particular, to the diversity of cultural, ethnic and religious factors in those States (second sentence of Article 5, read in conjunction with the tenth recital), the fact remains that the Council has failed to explain why Sunday, as a weekly rest day, is more closely connected with the health and safety of workers than any other day of the week.”[33]

Based on the above the Court upheld the UK government’s alternative claim and annulled the second sentence of Article 5.

Article 5b Annulment and its Compliance

Subsequently, the European Community institutions immediately complied with the judgment of the Court of Justice. At its sitting, the European Parliament on Thursday, 12 December 1996 adopted a Resolution on Sunday work. The adopted measures called:

“Member States and social partners in their transposition of the working time Directive to pay due regard to the traditions and cultural, social, religious and family needs of their citizens and to recognise that special character of Sunday as a day, as usually all family members are free on that day; reaffirms the right of workers to a weekly day of rest…” And also “Member States to recognise that in a multi-cultural society there are also religious communities who may have preference for an alternative rest day.”[34]

Here again, it is important to note that the European Parliament reiterated the discretion of Member States but significantly stated it was imperative that each Member State in their consideration of Sunday as a weekly rest day should take due regard to minority religious groups who may have an alternative rest day.

The Commission concurred with the European Court of Justice for it noted “Article 5 (weekly rest): the second sub-paragraph of Article 5, which refers to Sunday rest, is deleted. This formalises the decision of the European Court of Justice.”[35]

Directives 93/104/EC and 2000/34/EC were both codified.[36] The changes came into force on the date of the Directive’s publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.”[37]

Attempts to reinstate Article 5b of Directive 93/104/EC

Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time without Article 5 subparagraph two was in operation. In 2008, during the revision of the Working Time Directive 2003/88/EC, seven MEPs supported by Catholic Bishops (COMECE) initiated two amendments aiming at including a Sunday weekly rest clause.

The first amendment was a new recital (6a) which sought to explain that “the likelihood of sickness in companies that require staff to work on Sundays is greater than in companies that do not require staff to work on Sundays. The health of workers depends, among other factors, on their opportunities to reconcile work and family to establish and maintain social ties and to pursue their spiritual needs. Sunday, as the traditional weekly rest day, contributes to the objectives more than any other day of the week.”[38]

What then followed was the current proposal amending Article 5(2a) to include “The minimum rest periods referred to in the first paragraph shall in principle include Sunday.”[39] It should be noted this would constitute the introduction of the previously annulled Article 5(2). The justification for these amendments lay in “… Eurofound findings demonstrate that absenteeism and sick-leave increase significantly in companies working on Sunday…””[40]

The amendments aimed at including the protection of Sunday as a weekly rest day were neither debated nor voted on by the European Parliament for procedural reasons.[41] However, the Catholic Bishops appealed to churches and various organisations to stay mobilised on the Sunday issue.

Law Infringement

On 31 January 2000, Jorge Hernandez Mollar (PPE DE), a European Member of Parliament in a written question (E-0170/00) to the Commission sought clarification on the Community’s position on the subject of weekly rest days on religious grounds.

Given the influx of immigrants from Maghreb countries working in various EU states, inquired what provisions were in place considering that “the rest days generally given are Fridays and Saturdays, allowing them to keep these days sacred.”[42] And furthermore, that they be the opportunity “to extend the regulation of weekly rest days on religious grounds and introduce the necessary coordination with the practice usually followed in the Member States of the EU of keeping Sunday as a day of rest.”[43]

The legal response from Mrs Dianantopoulou on behalf of the Commission on the 15 March 2000 reiterated that it was not for the European Parliament or Council to legislate but rather to support and complement Member States.[44] . To the contrary, the Commissioner underlined legal obligations the European Community was expected to adhere. She wrote:

“On 25 November 1999, the Commission adopted a package of two legislative proposals and a proposal for a programme to combat discrimination in the Community based on Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty.”

“One of these initiatives is a proposal for a horizontal directive to combat discrimination, inter alia, on grounds of religion. Article 12 of this proposal requires Member States to encourage social partners to contribute to the implementation of the principle of equality of treatment by adopting collective agreements, codes of conduct, research or exchange of experiences and good practice aimed at preventing discrimination.”[45]

The ethos of the European Union is therefore to fight religious discrimination. To ignore the annulled Article 5(b) of the Council Directive 93/104/EC as argued by the Court of Justice would be tantamount to an infringement of the Community Law on discrimination.

Submissions

• In the light of the annulment of Article 5(b) of the Council Directive 93/104/EC, I argue that as long as Article 137 (ex Article 118a) is linked to health and safety measures, Sunday law legislation whatever form it may take will be anchored into the European Union by default and thus render it as unlawful. Notwithstanding it is for this reason UK and the Council seemed to have invoked the sociological approach, which seems to provide the current preoccupation on the part of those intending to anchor Sunday law in the European legislation.
• European Member States by law are to decide whether to have Sunday as a weekly day of rest and not the European Community institutions or any other religious group or associations. It is the Member States who must “pay due regard in particular to diversity of cultural, ethnic, and religious factors in those Member States.”[46]
• Religious discrimination is prohibited by European Community law. According to Case 13/63 Italy v Commission “Discrimination may consist not only in treating like cases differently but also in treating different cases alike.”[47] And as such to enact a law that treats the minority groups, who worship on alternative days such as Fridays and Saturdays in the same way as those who worship on Sundays is to discriminate against those minority religious groups.
• Sunday as a weekly rest day violates the human rights against those who may want to worship on an alternative day. Article 9(1) of the Convention provides “the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...”[48] But also continues “freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society… for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”[49]

The Convention has three measures to test the limitations of Article 9 and these are:

(1) when prescribed by law

(2) legitimate aim and

(3) and when is ‘necessary in a democratic society’

Legislation of Sunday as a weekly rest day in the European Union fails on all three counts.

Conclusion

I sincerely applaud efforts to enhance the protection of workers’ health and safety at their workplace and the reconciliation of work and family life, but there is no correlation between these objectives and the need for a legally instituted Sunday rest day.

In my view, the attempt to enshrine Sunday Law in Europe currently in progress through the Written Declaration procedure still remains unlawful. This issue was last before the ECJ in 1993 and it was decided that although the Working Time Directive was properly adopted and in keeping with the Treaty, the second sentence of Article 5 was not, and so was annulled.[50]

The Written Declaration is merely repetition, wrongly adopted and at variance with Article 137 (ex 118a) of the Treaty of the European Union and as such manifestly falls outside of the scope of the Directive. Those pushing for this motion are misdirected in arriving at the inference that their efforts to amend the Directive would be successful by a mere explanation as to why Sunday as a weekly day of rest contributes more than any other day of the week to the health and safety of workers. The fact remains that the explanations submitted with the Written Declaration are repetition of the arguments rejected in previous attempts to amend the Directive and therefore must fail even today.

MEPs are earnestly requested to consider the fundamentals upon which the Union is founded as follows:

• “The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles which are common to the Member States”.[51]
• “The right to equality before the law and the protection of all persons against discrimination constitutes a fundamental right and is essential to the proper functioning of democratic societies”.[52]
• “The right of individuals not to be discriminated against on arbitrary grounds has long been recognised by International Organisations, the European Union and its Member States”.[53]

My concern is that those advocating for this proposal have again failed to consider the implications of this Legislation. It remains unclear how this law would be monitored, enforced and whether there will be penalties for non compliance. Europe is a multi- cultural and diverse region.

Removing the cloak on this issue, it appears to me that this is just another attempt to use Parliament to make laws which benefit only (Sunday worshippers) and to discriminate those that do not fall within this Criterion. In my view it is clear that accepting the proposed amendment will only serve to infringe the rights conferred by Article 9 (1) of the Convention and will thus discriminate against those that worship on alternative days. None of the measures put in place by the Convention to test the limitations of Article 9 have been established.

Whilst it is wholly appreciated to provide legal protection to ensure that every individual has the right to observe any day of their choice for worship it is entirely inappropriate to force a doctrinal position on all Union Citizens. This matter deserves a full debate engaging all the parties concerned and in particular the minority groups so that the legal position is made clear and that the possible future religious ramifications of this proposed Legislation are considered in light of the aims and objectives of the European Union.

I respectfully ask for a stay of the Written Declaration for reflection and consultation.

[2] Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol.36, L307, 12 December 1993

[3] Case-84/94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Union, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol.26, No.1, January [1997] IRLR 32.

[4] Case 84/94 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union. Court of Justice of the European Communities Reports of Case before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. ECR 1-5805 and 1-5806, para, 37.

[5] http://www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function=news&_sub=&id=1&langauge=en 18/12/2008

[6] European Parliament Written Declaration DC763921EN.doc

[7] Nigel Foster, Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005-2006 (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 16^th Edition, p.42

[8] Ibid

[9] Official Journal No. C28/1 (88/C28/01) 3^rd February 1988 – The Council Resolution of 21 December 1987.

[10] Official Journal of the European Committees No. L183/1 (89/391/EEC), 26 May 1989

[11] Official Journal of the European Communities No. C126/4 (89/C126/04), 23 May 1989.

[12] Ibid

[13] Convention 14 Weekly Rest (Industry), 1921, Article 7, International Labour Conventions and Recommendations, Vol.1, 1949-1951, International Labour Office, Geneva, International Labour Organisation. (This Convention came into force on 19 June 1923).

[14]Convention 106, Weekly Rest (Commerce and Officers), 1957, Article 6, International Conventions and Recommendations 1952-1976, Vol. 11, International Labour Offices, Geneva, International Labour Organisation, p.91

[15] European Social Charter, collected texts (3^rd edition) 2002, Council of Europe Publishing, 2003, p.13

[16] International Labour Conventions and Recommendations 1952-1976 Vol. 2 Convention No.106 (Weekly Rest in Commerce and Offices) Article 6(4), p.93

[17] Official Journal of the European Communities, C60, Vol. 34, 8 March 1991, Information and Notices

[18] Ibid

[19] Official Journal of the European Communities, Debates of the European Parliament 1990-1991 session, Report of Proceedings form 18-22 February 1991, Europe House, Strasbourg, p.30. Note that the ILO did not specify the day of the week.

[20] Ibid, p.32

[21] Ibid, p.36

[22] Ibid, p.38

[23] Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 36, L307, 12 December 1993

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

[26] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, Court of Justice of the European Communities, Reports of Case before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (ECR 1-5755). In details see also Case 84/94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Union, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol.26, No 1. January ([1997] IRLR 1-76)

[27][1997] IRLR 30

[28][1997] IRLR 33

[29] Ibid

[30] UK (Applicant) v Council of the European Union (Defendant) Case 84/94, Industrial Relations Law Reports, Vol. 26, No.1, January 1997, pp 30-31

[31] Ibid

[32] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, ECR 1-5805

[33] Case 84/94 UK v Council of the European Union, ECR 1-5806

[34] Official Journal of the European Communities C20 Vol. 40 20/01/1997 Minutes of sitting of Thursday, 12 December 1996 B4-1354, 1368,1413 and 1433/96 – Resolution on Sunday Week.

[35] Official Journal of the European Communities, C249, Vol.42, 1 September 1999 (1999/C249/04), Information and Notices

[36] Official Journal of the European Union, C61, Vol. 46, 14 March 2003, Information and Notices

[37] Ibid.

[38] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[39] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[40]www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[41] www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSCProtectionofSunday_EN.pdf 30/03/2009

[42] Official Journal of the European Communities C280 E 03/10/2003 P.0193-0193 http//eur_lex.europa.eu

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid

[45] Ibid see also Commission of the European Communities, Establishing a General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation, COM (1999) 565 Final, Brussels.

[46] ECR 1-5785 to 1-5786 ECR para.139. see also tenth Recital in OJ L307 Vol.36 13.12.1993

[47] Case 13/63, Italy v Commission [1963] ECR 165 and also Case 130/75, Vivien Prais v Council of the European Communities [1976] ECR 1-1592 and 1-1593.

[48] Henry Steiner and Philip Alston, International Human Rights in Context, Law, Politics and Morals (Oxford University Press, 2000) p.1425

[49] Ibid

[50] Case-84-94 United Kingdom v Council of the European Communities [1996] ECR 1-5809 para.49 and [1997] IRLR 57 para.49. For Actions of Annulment see http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/justice/index_en.htm

[51] Nigel Foster, Blackstone’s EC Legislation 2005-2006 (Oxford: University Press, 2005), 16^th Edition , p.92.

[52] Commission of the European Communities, On Certain Community Measures to Combat Discrimination, COM (1999) 564 Final, Brussels, p2.

[53] Ibid.

Interview: Scott Ritsema talks about his new book “The Way, the Truth and the Sword”

Scott Ritsema tackles the current controversy surrounding issues of faith and political power in his new book, The Way, the Truth and the Sword: A New Christian Civics in an Age of Coercive Power. I recently caught up with him to discuss the book, which is available online at http://www.lulu.com/content/3160866

RLTV: Your book has a fascinating take on current events.  Can you give us a hint on what The Way, the Truth, and the Sword about?

SR: The Way, the Truth and the Sword is about the church’s unholy alliance with state power. It is about Satan’s tempting offer for us to rule the kingdoms of the world, which has lured us away from the kingdom of God and toward coercive human governments. Whether the subject is militarism, dominion theology, Christian Zionism, the Social Gospel, the moral crusading of the religious right, or the social crusading of the religious left, all attempts on the part of Christians to utilize government power as a means to advance an agenda come under criticism.

But the book doesn’t merely critique, it also sets out to form a framework for how Christians should view, and operate within, the civic realm.

RLTV: It seems like you list a lot of groups there. Some religious people think it is only natural to use political power to advance a religious agenda when people in the secular world do it all the time.  What’s wrong with it?

SR:   Using political power to advance an agenda is wrong simply because no New Testament scripture gives us permission to use force at all. If Christians use government force to advance an agenda, we are participating in violence in clear contradiction to what the Bible teaches. The entire New Testament is filled with teaching and admonition about how we are supposed to make disciples, save souls, care for the poor, etc., and in the process, change the world. The kingdom of God that Jesus taught us about transcends human kingdoms, and it gives us a blueprint for a better way to operate in the world through love and invitation, not coercion and violence. Christians are, first and foremost, citizens of the kingdom of Heaven, and we are to obey the dictates of the New Testament, among which include many clear admonitions to love, to serve, to put down the sword, to turn the other cheek, to leave vengeance to God, to love our enemies, and to even feed our enemies—all of these attitudes run contrary to the way that human governments, by their very nature, operate. The New Testament leaves no room at all for Christians to pick up the sword, looking to the political process to advance our goals, like the secular world does. We are required to advance the Christian way in a Christ-like way; we need to trust in the efficacy of the methods that Jesus commanded us to use.

The New Testament leaves no room at all for Christians to pick up the sword, looking to the political process to advance our goals, like the secular world does.

I reject the idea that since the secular world supposedly picked a fight with us, that we have to fight back on the world’s terms. Paul tells us that the weapons we use are not the weapons of this world. We “fight” by loving them back, and leaving vengeance to God. We ought to lead the way in attempting to make peace with our “enemies,” not resorting to force and coercion in violation of the Scriptures.

RLTV: Given the rhetoric in the last election, this is certainly a controversial subject.  What drew you to this issue?

Shortly thereafter, I began to get the sense that one of the greatest impediments to the advancement of the gospel was the conduct and political ideology of Christians in the political realm. When talking to non-believers, it seemed that they perceived the church as a threatening political force, rather than a group of people who want to love and serve and incarnate the risen Christ. (In 2007, a Barna study confirmed this suspicion; the results are published in the book Un-Christian.) The gospel being my central love and hope, this really troubled me. I was astonished that Christians were as likely, or even more likely, than non-believers to support an unnecessary war of aggression and even torture! I realized that the evangelical church was married to another husband other than Christ, and I set out to play my part in attempting to annul that marriage. This desire to disassociate Jesus from the evils done in his name, and to repair the reputation of the church, and to help make her more holy and set apart, is the most important objective within the civic realm.

We are not of this world, and so our goal should not be to try to rule the kingdoms of this world.

However, we are called 1) to be humanitarian—to defend the cause of the poor and the victim—and 2) to play the prophetic role of speaking out against evils perpetuated by the powerful. So, to the extent that the church participates in the political process, we should work to non-violently restrain the oppressive power of the state over individuals’ lives and liberties and property, as well as “speaking truth to power” in defense of human life and liberty. This is our “prophetic” role when it comes to the evil of the state, particularly when members of that government claim to represent Jesus in their aggressive acts.

What does this look like, exactly? I think that Christians should be the first to speak out against unjust wars and torture, and even to advocate for a foreign policy of peace and non-intervention. We should know our Constitution and hold our representatives accountable to it (after all, the Constitution is our government in our rule of law system, and the Christian is called to submit to the government, which in this case means helping our public servants submit to the Constitution). We should promote freedom in the economy, since each individual, not the state, is a steward of his wealth. We should work to keep the state from legislating on matters of religion and personal conscience. When it comes down to it, nearly everything the state does is beyond its proper bounds of punishing aggressors, and so I think that the natural ideological thrust of the peacemaker who opposes coercion (i.e. the Christian) should be in the libertarian direction. Certainly a libertarian government will perpetuate fewer acts of theft, murder, and other forms of aggression than a government that is tasked with running the world or redistributing wealth or manipulating peoples’ behavior, and so our humanitarian impulse will drive us in this direction as well. But it’s important for the church to not confuse any particular political ideology with the Kingdom of Heaven. Keeping the church separate from the state is the most important thing.

Scott Ritsema currently teaches Advanced Placement U.S. History, American Government, and Economics at Woodcrest Christian High School in Riverside, California, where he resides with his wife, Cami.

He holds a single Master’s degree in History, Political Science, and Economics from California State University, San Bernardino, as well as a Bachelor’s in U.S. History from Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Ritsema runs the news and activist website, CIVICS NEWS.com, which exists to  present an alternative Christian voice in the political realm and to advance the cause  of liberty and humanity.

Richard Land and Jim Wallis: Faith and Politics

Moderated by Krista Tippett, host of American Public Media’s Speaking of Faith, this panel of conservative evangelical Dr. Richard Land and liberal evangelical Jim Wallis separates faith from any one party and defines a broad faith-oriented agenda - University of Minnesota

Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

SALEM, OREGON -  On April 9, 2009, the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786).  House Speaker Dave Hunt, Bureau of Labor and Industry director Brad Avakian, and Senator David Nelson led the testimony in favor of the bill followed by Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton, attorney Michael D. Peabody, and two employees who would benefit from SB 786, David Miller and Shani Balverio.  Willamette College of Law professor Steven Green, former general counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also testified on behalf of SB 786.

SB 786 would clarify the definition of the term “undue hardship” and provide a series of factors that employers can apply in determining whether or not they can honor an employee’s request for religious accommodation in the areas of holy day observance and religious dress requirements. 

This is an effort that has been spearheaded for the past few years by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton.

ONLINE RESOURCES:

1.  Testimony of Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton in support of SB 786

2.  Testimony of Attorney Michael D. Peabody in support of SB 786

3.  Talking Points on SB 786

4.  Full Text of SB 786

Canada: Fundraisers planned for Alberta pastor punished for expressing beliefs

You may recall that Pastor Stephen Boissoin got himself in hot water with the Alberta Human Rights Commission when he wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate that was critical of the “homosexual agenda.”  The community newspaper published the letter and the pastor was promptly sued.  Limits on free speech can lead to persecution and should be a concern for everybody who at one time or another dares to express something controversial from any point of view in the marketplace of ideas.  Editor

For more information about “thought crimes” see “Thought and Crime” which was published in Liberty magazine in the March/April 2008 issue.  Since then, we have posted an update at RLTV.  A series of fundraisers ahve been planned for Canada to support Pastor Stephen Boissoin.  Thanks to Mark Chipeur for alerting us to these events. The following text is lifted from their promotional materials. Michael Peabody]

Stephen Boissoin was hauled before Alberta’s human rights commission over a complaint from a teacher with a Messianic complex. This teacher accused Mr. Boissoin of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation over a letter criticising homosexuality that was published in the Red Deer Advocate.

The human rights commission found Mr. Boissoin guilty of discrimination and hate. The adjudicator has banned Mr. Boissoin from preaching the Gospel This militantly state-ist ruling is one of the most aggressive attempts yet in Canada to stamp out public Christianity.

Alberta’s provincial government intervened in the case on the side of the commission and the complainant, against Mr. Boissoin.

The “human rights” commissioner also ordered Mr. Boissoin to issue a – false, if necessary – apology for his written comments. He was also ordered to pay money to the complainant for hurt feelings even though the complainant was supposedly fighting on behalf of homosexuals, not for himself.

Stephen Boissoin fears God and has refused to comply with this “human rights” decision. Instead, he has appealed the decision into Alberta’s court system.

This course of action, which has very important implications for all Christians and lovers of freedom, not just for Mr. Boissoin himself, may cost a lot of money.

Ezra Levant incurred a cost of $100,000 to fight back against an Alberta human rights commission attack based on his publication of the Muslim “Danish cartoons” in Western Standard magazine.

Christian businessman Scott Brockie incurred $170,000 in costs to fight several appeals of a homosexual-based “human rights” complaint in Ontario.

We need to support Mr. Boissoin’s legal challenge. We need to hold up his arms and help him fight this battle. The ECP Centre stands with Mr. Boissoin, and we are asking you also to lend your support to this important appeal, to join this battle to preserve fundamental freedoms in Canada – the freedom to share the Gospel to all people, including homosexuals; freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.

Religious Freedom Fundraising Dinners:

Calgary – April 30
Red Deer – May 1st
Edmonton – May 2nd

Ezra Levant, one of Canada’s most powerful and relentless advocates for freedom will be the Feature Speaker at each of the three Fundraising Dinners to be held in Calgary, Red Deer and Edmonton.

Ezra has just published a book on the scandal of human rights abuse by the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. Autographed copies will be available at each of the Fundraising Dinners.

The Calgary dinner is on Thursday, April 30th. The Red Deer dinner will take place on Friday, May 1st. The Edmonton dinner is scheduled for Saturday, May 2nd.

Tickets for these Fundraising Dinners are $100 each. I look forward to seeing you in Calgary, Red Deer or Edmonton. Please let ECP know how many tickets you would like to reserve and send your donation directly to:

ECP Centre,
P.O. Box 7,
Russell, Ontario K4R 1C7 or call
613-482-1790. Tickets can also be purchased online at

http://www.ecpcentre.com/dinners.php

Download the event poster at http://www.ecpcentre.com/pdf/ECP_Boisson_poster.pdf

ECP is also looking for sponsors who would like to sponsor a table of eight. If you are interested in helping Rev. Boissoin and the ECP
Centre with that level of support, please call them at 613-482-1790.

Thank you for you interest and support for this important court case and the other threats to freedom that must be addressed across Canada.

*Funds raised at these dinners will be allocated with 50% directed to Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s legal expenses and 50% directed to the work of
the ECP Centre, which includes direct support and advocacy for Rev. Stephen Boissoin’s case and other important cases across Canada.

Alan Greenspan: Gold and Economic Freedom (1966)

[Given the recent state of the economy, it is important to explore whether there is a strong correlation between religious freedom and economic freedom, or individual property rights and the interest of the state. The following was published in Ayn Rand's "Objectivist" newsletter in 1966, and reprinted in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in 1967.  Regardless of what you think of Rand or Greenspan, the issue is just as relevant today as it was then.  Given the history since 1966, it would be interesting to see whether Alan Greenspan still agrees with his previous conclusions.  Emphasis has been added. Editor.]

An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense — perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire — that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term “luxury good” implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society’s divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one — so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the “easy money” country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline — argued economic interventionists — why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely — it was claimed — there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks (“paper reserves”) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve’s attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain’s gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The “Fed” succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market, triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930′s.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain’s abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed “a mixed gold standard”; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form — from a growing number of welfare-state advocates — was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which — through a complex series of steps — the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

London Telegraph Describes G20 Plan For Bank Of The World, Global Currency

EXCERPT:

A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.

“We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,” it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.

Read the Telegraph article here.