Eric Kreye, whose story is told in  the book Under the Blood Banner: The Story of a Hitler Youth talks with Michael Peabody about growing up in Hitler’s Germany.  Born in America but raised in Germany, Eric describes how he was beaten by his teacher when he could not recite Hitler’s life story, how his father helped him avoid many of the Hitler Youth activities, how his family hid a Jewish woman and her daughter from the Gestapo, what it was like when the American military moved into Germany, and how he and his brother came to America.

To read “Under the Blood Banner” online visit: http://www.amazingjoy.com/frame_contents.htm

The book is also available in print from TEACH Services for $12.95.

Listen to the Interview:

Here is an excerpt:

In reviewing the history of the religion clauses of the Constitution, onecan take two paths. One supports the basic ideal underlying ourconstitutional framework: equality, which is inclusive and is based onrespect for all religious opinions. The other leads to exclusion byadvocating for one or more non-universal religious views. The first reflects the Framers’ goals for guaranteeing liberty to all. The other guarantees liberty only to those who muster the political might to use the state’s machinery to advocate for their religious beliefs. The first exists to protect every individual. The other focuses on the fact that the white, male, property-owning Framers believed in God, and thus concludes thatthe magnificent document they created “permits the disregard” of religious minorities with alternative beliefs.

Why would anyone choose that latter path? Why go out of the way to“permit the disregard” of a minority when such a notion is nowhere to be found within the text of the Constitution, and a historical reading can as readily and more nobly support the equality principle? What sort of American patriot, citizen, or public servant would work towards such an end?”

The entire article, which is well worth reading, is available in PDF format for free download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document for free.)

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT:

In June 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia contended that ‘the Establishment Clause…permits the disregard of devout atheists.’ This statement is extraordinary inasmuch as it appears to reverse an inexorable (albeit, at times, wandering) trend toward true equality. Thus, where individuals had previously been treated as less than equal on the basis of race (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford), gender (e.g., Bradwell v. State) and national origin (e.g., Korematsu v. United States), those odious decisions are no longer good law. In his McCreary dissent, it seems that Justice Scalia sought motion in the opposite direction: toward overturning equality, in the one constitutional arena where the Supreme Court had not previously proclaimed such a manifest animus toward minorities: religion.
This article takes three approaches in considering the Justice’s argument. First, recognizing that Justice Scalia prides himself on being a ‘textualist,’ it considers the Establishment Clause’s text (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’). Next, because Justice Scalia, in McCreary, used specific historical events to support his thesis, those events are analyzed to see if they were selected in a fair manner, and if they really stand for the proposition he claims.

Finally, in Part III, Justice Scalia’s brand of analysis is applied to his own Catholicism. It is shown that the United States of America was born of a literal hatred for Catholics, which was pervasive and persistent. One may well conclude, therefore, that under his approach, the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of his own religion.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document.)

By Ellen G. White – The Great Controversy pp. 293-298

——————————————————————–
Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the new World. Like the early Pilgrims, he came to enjoy religious freedom; but unlike them, he saw what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. He was an earnest seeker for truth, with Robinson holding it impossible that all the light from God’s word had yet been received. Williams “was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.” He declared it to be the duty of the magistrate to restrain crime, but never to control the conscience. “The public or the magistrates may decide,” he said, “what is due from man to man; but when they attempt to prescribe a man’s duties to God, they are out of place, and there can be no safety; for it is clear that if the magistrate has the power, he may decree one set of opinions or beliefs today and another tomorrow; as had been done in England by different kings and queens, and by different popes and councils in the Roman Church; so that belief would become a heap of confusion.”

Attendance at the services of the established church was required under a penalty of fine or imprisonment. “William’s reprobated the law; the worst statute in the English code was that which did but enforce attendance upon the parish church. To compel men to unite with those of a different creed, he regarded as an open violation of their natural rights; to drag to public worship the irreligious and the unwilling, seemed only like requiring hypocrisy. . . . ‘No one should be bound to worship, or,’ he added, ‘to maintain a worship, against his own consent.’ ‘What!’ exclaimed his antagonists, amazed at his tenets, ‘is not the laborer worthy of his hire?’ ‘Yes,’ replied he, ‘from them that hire him.’”

Roger Williams was respected and beloved as a faithful minister, a man of rare gifts, of unbending integrity and true benevolence; yet his steadfast denial of the right of civil magistrates to authority over the church, and his demand for religious liberty, could not be tolerated. The application of this new doctrine, it was urged, would “subvert the fundamental state and government of the country.” He was sentenced to banishment from the colonies, and finally, to avoid arrest, he was forced to flee, amid the cold and storms of winter, into the unbroken forest.

“For fourteen weeks,” he says, “I was sorely tossed in a bitter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.” But “the ravens fed me in the wilderness,” and a hollow tree often served him for a shelter. Thus he continued his painful flight through the snow and the trackless forest, until he found refuge with an Indian tribe whose confidence and affection he had won while endeavoring to teach them the truths of the gospel.

Making his way at last, after months of change and wandering, to the shores of Narragansett Bay, he there laid the foundation of the first state of modern times that in the fullest sense recognized the right of religious freedom. The fundamental principle of Roger Williams’s colony, was “that every man should have liberty to worship God according to the light of his own conscience.” His little state, Rhode Island, became the asylum of the oppressed, and it increased and prospered until its foundation principles—civil and religious liberty—became the cornerstone of the American Republic.

In that grand old document which our forefathers set forth as their bill of rights—the Declaration of Independence—they declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And the Constitution guarantees, in the most explicit terms, the inviolability of conscience: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable.

“The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate.”

As the tidings spread through the countries of Europe, of a land where every man might enjoy the fruit of his own labor and obey the convictions of his conscience, thousands flocked to the shores of the New World, Colonies rapidly multiplied. “Massachusetts, by special law, offered free welcome and aid, at the public cost, to Christians of any nationality who might fly beyond the Atlantic ‘to escape from wars or famine, or the oppression of their persecutors.’ Thus the fugitive and the downtrodden were, by statute, made the guests of the commonwealth.” In twenty years from the first landing at Plymouth, as many thousand Pilgrims were settled in New England.

To secure the object which they sought, “they were content to earn a bare subsistence by a life of frugality and toil. They asked nothing from the soil but the reasonable returns of their own labor. No golden vision threw a deceitful halo around their path. . . . They were content with the slow but steady progress of their social polity. They patiently endured the privations of the wilderness, watering the tree of liberty with their tears, and with the sweat of their brow, till it took deep root in the land.”

The Bible was held as the foundation of faith, the source of wisdom, and the charter of liberty. Its principles were diligently taught in the home, in the school, and in the church, and its fruits were manifest in thrift, intelligence, purity, and temperance. One might be for years a dweller in the Puritan settlements, “and not see a drunkard, or hear an oath, or meet a beggar.” It was demonstrated that the principles of the Bible are the surest safeguards of national greatness. The feeble and isolated colonies grew to a confederation of powerful States, and the world marked with wonder the peace and prosperity of “a church without a pope, and a state without a king.”

But continually increasing numbers were attracted to the shores of America, actuated by motives widely different from those of the first Pilgrims. Though the primitive faith and purity exerted a widespread and moulding power, yet its influence became less and less as the numbers increased of those who sought only worldly advantage.

The regulation adopted by the early colonists, of permitting only members of the church to vote or to hold office in the civil government, led to most pernicious results. This measure had been accepted as a means of preserving the purity of the state, but it resulted in the corruption of the church. A profession of religion being the condition of suffrage and office holding, many, actuated solely by motives of worldly policy, united with the church without a change of heart. Thus the churches came to consist, to a considerable extent, of unconverted persons; and even in the ministry were those who not only held errors of doctrine, but who were ignorant of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Thus again was demonstrated the evil results, so often witnessed in the history of the church from the days of Constantine to the present, of attempting to build up the church by the aid of the state, of appealing to the secular power in support of the gospel of Him who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.

The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.

The great principle so nobly advocated by Robinson and Roger Williams, that truth is progressive, that Christians should stand ready to accept all the light which may shine from God’s holy Word, was lost sight of by their descendants. The Protestant churches of America and those of Europe as well—so highly favored in receiving the blessings of the Reformation, failed to press forward in the path of reform. Though a few faithful men arose, from time to time, to proclaim new truth and expose long cherished error, the majority, like the Jews in Christ’s day or the papists in the time of Luther, were content to believe as their fathers had believed, and to live as they had lived. Therefore religion again degenerated into formalism; and errors and superstitions which would have been cast aside had the church continued to walk in the light of God’s word, were retained and cherished. Thus the spirit inspired by the Reformation gradually died out, until there was almost as great need of reform in the Protestant churches as in the Roman Church in the time of Luther. There was the same worldliness and spiritual stupor, a similar reverence for the opinions of men, and substitution of human theories for the teachings of God’s word.

###

“And so, by the power vested in me by the State of ___  and Almighty God, I now pronounce you husband and wife. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”

This pronouncement is the point in a religious wedding ceremony where the power of the state and the power of the Almighty God come together to fuse a couple in holy matrimony. To date, the vast majority of debates on same-sex marriage have focused on whether it is morally or spiritually correct. However, the foundational issue is whether the church should seek the right to control marriages performed outside of its walls. At its core, this is a battle that challenges the tenuous yet mutually protective balance between church and state, and the results matter regardless of what you believe about same-sex marriage.

Weddings are typically joyful experiences and even the most avowed atheists have not tried to prevent ministers from claiming the power of the State in performing the ceremony. However, even though the church and the state may happily hold hands at the wedding, they cannot dance together gracefully into a long-lasting  marriage unless each has great respect for the non-overlapping rights and obligations of the other.

Unlike the newlyweds, the state is not obligated to “forsake all others,” when it comes to religious viewpoints.  The state has little discretion when it comes  to solemnizing marriages, and absent an amendment to the constitution itself, is limited only by statutes having to do with the consent of the parties, age of the parties, and whether there are more than two parties involved.  On the other hand, churches have very broad discretion to solemnize marriages and can refuse to do so for virtually any reason. This broad discretion has not been challenged.

However, when the state begins to recognize marriages that churches find inappropriate, many churches are offended – churches feel almost as if the state has decided to “cheat” on the church. And hell hath no fury like a church scorned.

Regardless of the fact that same-sex couples have sought ceremonies in churches that will perform them or have sought civil ceremonies, conservative churches have begun to step in and intervene and have relied upon the power of the majority to force changes in otherwise permissive state constitutions.  This is not only a battle between secularism and religion. It is a battle between competing religious ideologies, and ultimately a battle for spiritual control.

Alonzo T. Jones, writing in his 1891 classic, The Two Republics: or, Rome and the United States of America, makes an astonishing observation about the way that the Medieval church accumulated political power over the state.

“Another most prolific source of general corruption was the church’s assumption of authority to regulate, and that by law, the whole question of the marriage relation, both in the Church and in the state. ”The first aggression . . . which the Church made on the state, was assuming the cognizance over all questions and causes relating to marriage. ” — Milmaii.21  (Click here to read the entire passage.)

While we are not at a point in history where the church is asserting direct political control, we can see that the church may be headed down this pathway yet again. After describing the circumstances and the Church’s methods, Jones continues:

“[I]n accordance with the rest of the theocratical legislation of Constantine and the bishops, the precepts of the Scripture in relation to marriage and divorce were adopted with heavy penalties, as the laws of the empire. As the church had assumed ‘cognizance over all questions relating to marriage,’ it followed that marriage not celebrated by the church was held to be but little better than an illicit connection.”

The church continued to assert control over legal marriage for centuries thereafter. In March of 1880, the Canadian Parliament considered a bill that would allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister.  The debate quickly turned to an argument over whether the church or the state had the power to regulate marriage.  There were Protestant and Jewish participants in the debate, the entirety of which can be read above, however the Catholic representative quickly asserted that the Church had “supreme power over marriage” and that the state must stand down. 

“Pius IX, in his letter to the King of Sardinia, dated 19th September, 1852, says : ” It is a dogma of faith that marriage was raised by Our Lord Jesus Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.”  Would you know the doctrine? The Council of Trent speaks: ‘Whosoever says that marriage is not really and truly one of the seven sacraments of the Evangelical Law, let him be anathema.’ If marriage is a sacrament, and such is our unalterable belief, the Church only, by divine right, has supreme power over Christian marriage. In fact the Church alone is the dispenser of the sacraments. St. Paul teaches us this in his first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 4, in which he says : ‘Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Jesus Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’ The Pope Gelasius, writing to the Emperor Austasins told him plainly: ‘Although your dignity raises you above the human race, you are nevertheless subject to the Bishops in matters relating to the faith, and to the delivering of the sacraments.’

 And what is a sacrament, if it be not a means subordinate in its nature to the object of religious society? The Church has, therefore, supreme power over marriage. . . . We now arrive at the true question as it presents itself to us. We shall easily solve it. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier brings in a Bill which may meet with our approval, but he has just delivered a speech which I cannot accept as an expression of the ideas and principles of Catholics upon this question of marriage. What does the hon. member maintain? That this Parliament has the undoubted right to establish absolute impediments to marriage, and the not less undoubted power of dispensing with them. I protest against such a declaration, and I emphatically deny that this Parliament has a right to legislate as to the validity of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament; the state has nothing to say as to the administration of the sacrament, and, by consequence, as to the validity of marriage. That is an ecclesiastical contract over which religious society alone has a power, which cannot be vested in the state.”  (Emphasis added. Click here to read the debate.)

In the eyes of the Catholic church at the time, only sacramental marriage was legitimate.  Again, the current debate relates to this history. Does the church or the state have the power to define marriage?  If the church has the power, which church?

In California, church and state collided on marriage issues in 1948 when the Catholic Church sued claiming that the state had violated its religious liberty through a long-standing civil prohibition on interracial marriages.   The Court issued its ruling in Perez v. Sharp,198 P.2d 17, 32 Cal. 2d 711 (1948) (also known as Perez v. Lippold).  Those opposed to interracial marriage raised three major arguments: First, they argued that the law was really not discriminatory. Secondly, they discussed the effect on the children. Third they asserted that, in this case, the state had the power over the church’s sacrament because of an interest in promoting the “health safety, and general welfare.”  Ironically, these three arguments once used against the church’s request provide the backbone of the current arguments against same-sex marriage.

The Court’s majority found that the church was right and that the “anti-miscegenation” law was unconstitutional. Justice Shenk, dissenting in favor of the prohibition, wrote that the law was not discriminatory because, “Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”

In language that appears extremely offensive, Shenk turned his attention to the children resulting from interracial unions, “It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”

Justice Shenk then stated that prohibiting interracial marriage was consistent with the “peace and safety” provisions of the Constitution. Shenk’s arguments should be familiar if you are following the current debate, and in fact several of the same cases are regularly cited including Cantwell v. Connecticut, and Reynolds v. United States.  

“Other considerations are presented in connection with petitioners’ contentions that their religious liberty is being infringed. The First Amendment to the United states Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces this fundamental concept of liberty as expressed in the First Amendment and renders the states likewise incompetent to transgress it. However, this religious liberty ‘embraces two concepts, freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’ Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 903, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 110, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81; Gospel Army v. City of Los Angeles, 27 Cal.2d 232, 163 P.2d 704. It has long been held that conduct, consisting of practices and acts, remains subject to regulation for the health, safety and general welfare. For example, a legislative determination that monogamy is the ‘law of social life’ has been held to prevail over the practice of polygamy and bigamy as a duty required, encouraged or suffered by religion. Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 67 S.Ct. 13, 91 L.Ed. 12.

“The reasoning behind this construction of the Constitution is obvious. The determination of proper standards of behaviour must be left to the Congress or to the state legislatures in order that the well being of society as a whole may be safeguarded or promoted. The protection of the individual’s exercise of religious worship afforded by our state Constitution, Article I, section 4, corresponds with that furnished by the federal guaranty as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Our Constitution expressly provides that the free exercise of religion guaranteed ‘shall not be so construed as to * * * justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this state.’” 

Justice Shenk then provides a sampling of “supportive” scientific and legal documents, which are nearly frightening, and draws the following conclusion:

“ The foregoing excerpts from scientific articles and legal authorities make it clear that there is not only some but a great deal of evidence to support the legislative determination (last made by our Legislature in 1933) that intermarriage between Negroes and white persons is incompatible with the general welfare and therefore a proper subject for regulation under the police power. There may be some who maintain that there does not exist adequate data on a sufficiently large scale to enable a decision to be made as to the effects of the original admixture of white and Negro blood. However, legislators are not required to wait upon the completion of scientific research to determine whether the underlying facts carry sufficient weight to more fully sustain the regulation.”

Incidentally, most churches stayed out of the interracial marriage debate, leaving the Catholic Church to carry the civil rights issue forward. 

Although it has not happened as of yet in California, a lawsuit brought by a church that wishes to perform same-sex marriages that are recognized by the state could easily follow the reasoning found in Perez. This could create a bitter inter-religious fight in the courts between fundamentalist churches and permissive churches, and the courts would be asked to make a ruling on a religious issue.  My guess is that fundamentalists considered this troubling prospect and proposed the Constitutional Amendment to take the matter out of the court system altogether. However, in doing so, marriage was denied a full legal treatment, and the reliance on public sentiment to permanently curtail judicial examination of potential rights creates a very troubling precedent which will likely carry over into other contexts.  To understand the gravity of this approach, consider that had a ballot initiative been campaigned to amend the California constitution in opposition to the California Supreme Court’s finding in favor of allowing interracial marriage, interracial marriage would likely be unconstitutional in California today.*

While there are certainly reasons why churches should to have the right to solemnize only traditional marriage of a man and a woman within their walls, there is no legal foundation for churches to prevent marriage in other arenas. This could only be obtained via a structural change to the constitution itself.

Churches that are willing to argue that religious liberty does not extend to marriage are also asserting their power to limit the “rights” of other churches to perform same-sex marriages, and could soon see their own liberties limited in other areas through operation of their own logic if the political winds shift. 

Legally, not religiously, the institution of marriage is at a crossroads, and there are several ways that the matter could be resolved. First, all marriages could be reduced to nothing more than a civil contract with a separate non-legally recognized spiritual component. Secondly, the state could recognize the legal status of marriages between two consenting adults regardless of gender, and preserve the civil / religious nature of marriage and continue to preserve the broad discretion to marry or not presently enjoyed by churches. 

Considering the most recent votes on marriage, I would like to offer a third possibility.  Instead of secularism, could it be that religion will prevail over the state, casting a “theocratic” shadow over the nation?  In the late 1800s, the church’s power to control marriage was used as the precedent to promote laws governing the other institution of creation, the Sabbath.*  Could that happen again?  Maybe this is slippery slope reasoning, but considering that religious fundamentalists have been arguing that the secular state will prevail over the church if left unchecked, it is not an unfair argument. Perhaps instead of a single slippery slope, we are at the peak of the roof, facing slopes in both directions.

In a future article I plan to explore the history of marriage further and its legal relationship to religious legislation, but for now, at the least we should recognize the need to discern the issues involved in this debate fully before placing liberty of conscience at risk.

###

*The historical link between regulation of marriage and the legal basis for proposed sabbath legislation will be explored in more detail in a future article. For more on the issue of majoritarian control of fundamental rights, please read the prior essay, Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter

An excellent educational cartoon series about American History starring Walter Cronkite as Ben Franklin has now been posted on YouTube. In this episode, Ben Franklin, Moses, and James discover disguised colonists raiding the tea-laden ship that Sarah is aboard.   To watch the entire series, go to the Liberty Kids channel on YouTube.   The official Liberty’s Kids website includes activities and information for parents and teachers.

The following is reprinted here in its entirety, and you can view the entire publication in the box below:

THE following interesting bit of news is taken from the Washington Star of Nov. 13, 1922, under the caption, “Blue Law Arrest Follows Sunday Concert by Sousa”.

“Binghamton, N. Y., November 13.—Harold F. Albert, recreational director of the Endicott Johnson Corporation, was arrested yesterday afternoon on complaint of the Binghamton Ministerial Association for staging a concert by John Philip Sousa’s Band at which an admission was charged.

“It was alleged the concert violated ordinances governing the observance of Sunday.George F. Johnson, president of the Endicott-Johnson Corporation, announced that he is prepared to fight the Sunday blue laws to a finish in the courts. Mr. Sousa issued a statement in which he declared that there is more inspiration in the marches he has written than in the sermons of some of the ministers who objected to the concert.”

This is another case of the churches taking a course which makes religion repellent in the public eye. The Ministerial Association is lowering the standard of Christianity by assuming functions which are entirely foreign to the methods employed by the Author of Christianity. The God of heaven, who gave the gift of song to the birds to warble their music on Sundays as well as Mondays, must look in pity upon some of His professed followers who have gone so far astray as to prohibit by state laws the beautiful strains of music rendered by such artists as compose Sousa’s Band.

If this was done because a fee was charged for the services of the musicians, then let the churches first clean their own house by arresting the church choristers and soloists for accepting pay for their musical services, as is the ease in many churches.

 

By Michael Peabody

The other day someone sent me a link to an “Antichrist Decoder” that has been posted online by an otherwise reputable Christian ministry. You can type in anybody’s name and the program will calculate the value of the name in Roman numerals. 

After checking my name to make sure that I was not the Antichrist I looked at the other names that people had plugged into the decoder and learned that Barack Obama is not the antichrist, neither is Barack Hussein Obama.  Ronald Wilson Reagan’s name doesn’t add up to 666 even if you type in two “v”s to make the W.

People were having fun with the decoder and for the uninitiated it would be at home in a carnival next to the “Love Meter” or “Magic 8 Ball.” Perhaps an “antichrist decoder” made the rounds on the county fair circuit in years gone by, or a 666 Decoder Ring was the cheap plastic treat in the box of Cracker Jacks.

A conspiracy theory hits the same synapses as the Weekly World News or National Enquirerproviding junk food for the mind that masquerades as a nutritious meal.  Just this last week while little Falcon Heene was presumably floating above Colorado in a UFO-Shaped balloon, YouTube videos that his dad made about how Hillary Clinton could be a “reptilian shape shifter” spiked in popularity. And each night millions tune in hear George Noory on Coast to Coast AMwhile he discusses tunnels under the pyramids and portals to other dimensions.  And every year seekers crowd churches to hear the latest interpretations of Scripture that specify how mysterious political events are aligning to bring the world to an end.  The problem with the cheap thrill of side show conspiracy theories is that concern about legitimate issues is eventually eroded as the carnival callers “cry wolf” so often that the real wolves can count on a feast.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “Conspiracy Theory” as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”

Christianity as a whole is planted on a conspiracy theory that one day the world will end and that there are forces at work right now among the “principalities and powers” of this world that will effect that change and that rescue is coming from outer space and that you can communicate with tremendous powers simply through the power of thought.  We don’t often view it in these terms but that’s how it would sound to a Martian if he happened to walk into a church service.

In reality, some conspiracy theories are true and verifiable, but others are not. It is important to distinguish between verifiable or substantiated truth and error because any error, even if it is meant well, tends to corrupt the entirety of the message. In the religious world, people tend to take “judicial notice” of scripture so speaking in harmony with an established text is generally accepted, but other issues require proven and reliable evidence or they will, of necessity, be questioned. Believing that something bad is afoot if it is not mentioned in scripture with specificity must be backed up with substantial evidence if listeners are to take it seriously.

Conspiracy theories that float around without substantial grounding in truth present several serious drawbacks.

First, conspiracy theories that do not come true affect your credibility.

“A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.” Mel Gibson’s character inConspiracy Theory (1997). 

Around the year 2000, the millennial conspiracy nutcases (we call them now) came out and said that the world would end, planes would fall from the sky, and the electrical power grid would crash. Then, following 9/11 George Bush was going to institute marshal law and become dictator for life. Today, the H1N1 vaccine is a mind control drug and amounts to biological warfare.

Is there any truth to these conspiracies? Perhaps there is, but nothing has happened in the first two, and I am predicting that the vaccine will not create a nation of zombies. Still there are people who email me tons of information about FEMA concentration camps, mass production of body bags, and all kinds of fascinating things. I usually read them because it is fun to be afraid but each time it seems less and less likely.  There is too much “conspiracy” noise out there to distinguish the truth from the error, and unfounded conspiracies based on nothing more than the eyewitness report of a “friend of a friend of a friend” are not persuasive.

Second, conspiracy theories can distract you from present responsibilities.

“A Conspiracy!” cried the delighted lady, clapping her hands. “Of all things, I do like a Conspiracy! It’s so interesting!” – Lewis Carroll, My Lady, Sylvie and Bruno (1889) 

There is an old saying that it is possible to be “so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” You can also be so “conspiracy minded” that you are of no earthly good.

When people tell me about conspiracy theories I often ask them whether they have taken the time to learn more about their faith or do good in their communities. They may show me some pamphlets they gave to people to “warn” them about whatever they think is going to happen but most of the time they haven’t done much more.

I do write this from a Christian perspective and I’ve learned over time that we really do have a lot of freedom in the United States and in Canada for the most part to speak freely about religion or politics, and to assemble. There are challenges from time to time which can be addressed but we still have the ability to address them. In a large sense, religious liberty is a supportive ministry that can be called upon when needed but does not necessarily need to be front and center unless there is a specific need for it.

Religious liberty ministry is like a fire extinguisher in a glass case. It must be charged up and ready to go. It needs to have all the resources to handle severe fires, but the sign says, “In case of emergency, break glass.” It can be used to inform people of current events but never to distract from the main mission of the church, which I believe is set forth in the Great Commission.

This segues nicely to the third reason I have a problem with conspiracy theories.

Third, conspiracy theories can become the center of your faith.

“Our cause is a secret within a secret, a secret that only another secret can explain, it is a secret about a secret that is veiled by a secret.”  Ja’far as-Sadiq (6^th Imam)

A while back there was a group of borderline Seventh-day Adventists who decided to spread the gospel by talking about the antichrist. They put up billboards all over the country, reserved space in major newspapers, and otherwise launched massive media campaigns. Most of the ads appeared to be miles of tiny text punctuated by dire warnings and a picture of the purported antichrist.

This would appear to be evangelism in the negative – in other words, tell people about the bad in the world to teach them what’s good. It’s like former rock stars and drug dealers turned religious who tell stories of their fascinating lives. They had money, power, fame, mansions, cars, planes, and everything else you could ever want in life. But then the stories become far less interesting when they become Christians and now live in their vans traveling the country. I suppose it works for some people so I’m not going to knock it, but it’s usually made me more curious about their past than about what’s happening now.

I’ve met a lot of people who will tell all their friends about conspiracy theories thinking that they are sharing their faith. I met one person who went around giving out copies of Foxe’s Book of Martyrsand would regale listeners with stories about extreme torture. Entertaining? Weirdly so.  But effective? Yes, in turning people into atheists.

Leading somebody to an understanding of 666 is not the same as sharing one’s religious faith. It may seem like more fun but it doesn’t do much good in making an argument as to why people should want what you have.

Fourth, conspiracy theories can cause you to create enemies out of people whom you should be befriending and cause you to question the sincere motives of others.

“There will ever be some who take delight in dwelling upon the real or supposed faults and failures of others, and who employ their time in seeing, hearing, or reporting something that will destroy confidence in the person criticised. Few are without visible faults; in most persons careful scrutiny will reveal some defect of character; and upon these defects in others, some professed Christians delight to dwell. The habit strengthens with indulgence, and a love for gossip becomes their ruling passion. They gather together the tid-bits of reports,–all of them, it may be, utterly devoid of truth,–and feast upon the scandal, and share it with others as a rare delicacy.” Ellen White – Review and Herald, August 28, 1883.

Weird stories about aliens, Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, or any other group can draw unreasonable and unnatural lines between people. One person I met is fixated on the idea that there will one day be a holy war in America and is planning to run away into the mountains to hide from it all, but is afraid that he will not be able to escape persecution when it comes because the persecutors will have GPS and heat detectors. 

Unfortunately, this person has become a virtual hermit who believes he is living a pious lifestyle when in reality he makes Howard Hughes look normal. If he would put some of his tremendous mental horsepower to work helping people with problems that they are facing today, such as poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, and any other ways, he would make a tremendous impact for good. But instead he has twisted the plot around so much that he views any meaningful interaction with the real world as dangerous. Almost everybody is involved in a conspiracy against him, and he believes that most people in the world are formulating plans to do him wrong. The world has pretty much stayed the same but he has become a paranoid freak.

I’ve met wild eyed conspiracy theorists in many areas of life, not just religion. It is very difficult to reason with a person like this because if you question them, they believe that you are now part of the conspiracy. They think the worst of anybody they disagree with.

Hiding away on a mountain somewhere is not a call to piety. Conspiracy theories may have their place as mile markers but they should not impede forward progress.

In reality, the truth is out there, but you’re not likely to find it in a decoder ring.  True appreciation of faith or even religious liberty issues do not thrive in fear or require a crisis to be meaningful.  You can help liberty thrive when you care about the world and engage with it and the people who live here. Tell the verifiable, undeniable truth and the facts will speak for themselves.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”  Micah 6:8

###

Our best example might come from a time when much of Europe was a “Christian Continent.”   The Holy Roman Empire lasted from Emperor Otto’s coronation in 962 to 1806 when it was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars. For all intents and purposes it was considered the ultimate “Christian” political system.

The Empire was afraid what would happen if people began to compare the activities of its political and religious leaders with the Bible. There was tremendous power in the idea that a political leader could advance policies, not through debate, but by virtue that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”  To put this in perspective, imagine that President Obama could win the healthcare debate by simply saying that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”

Around 1419, John Huss began to speak against some of the customs of the Church, and because the Empire and the Church were so closely aligned, they spent a lot of energy trying to silence the “heresy.” The Empire was threatened because if Huss won the debate, he would show that the Church could be challenged and if the Church could be challenged, then it threatened the Empire itself, which based its power on the idea that God considered the Empire to be correct on all issues.

When people heard what Huss was saying, they began to doubt their old idea of a unified corpus Christianum and consider that people did not have to agree on everything when it came to faith.  A century later, in 1517, Martin Luther initiated the Reformation in an attempt to bring the Church around to his ideas.  People ended up siding with Luther or against him along geographic lines and Germany was split along these lines from which it never fully recovered until the Empire dissolved.

Added to this was the fact that popes and emperors tended to distrust each other, and felt that they had to fight to remain in control of the situation.

Many people believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the formation of a “state church” such as the Church of England.  While there are good reasons to believe that this was intended to be much broader, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Congress would still be free to declare that Christianity is the official religion of the country and that our laws were supposed to mirror God’s law.

Christianity has struggled with issues of power and control since its inception.  Throughout Jesus’ ministry, His disciples often asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest among us?”

They probably thought that Jesus would name John or Peter or Mathew and make this honored disciple a Vice President of the Kingdom.  But Jesus turned their question upside down.  

In Matthew 18 we read His answer. “Jesus called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV).

In recent months as I’ve read various calls for America to be declared a Christian nation, I’ve been surprised at some of the language used.  Tom Snyder on World Net Daily said that the idea of separation of church and state is promoted by “theophobic atheists, neo-pagan fascists, radical liberals, socialists, Marxists, anti-Christian bigots, sexual perverts, Christophobic politicians and journalists, and other such people who wish to obliterate the European Christian foundation on which America was built.”  See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45069

Snyder concludes that, “separation of church and state does not mean separation between politics and religion or politics and the Bible. As Gary DeMar points out, there is a big difference between an ‘ecclesiocracy’ where the church rules society through religious leaders with preachers and priests as the government officials, and a ‘theocracy’ where God rules the outward behavior of all people through the civil government chosen by the people. Thus, the Founding Fathers did indeed establish a Christian theocracy, but they did not establish a Christian ecclesiocracy.”

But who will tell us how God would rule the “outward behavior of all people”? Would some people claim to be closer to God and that they could tell everybody else how to live out their faith in their everyday lives? 

History tells us that it would not be a debate between Christians and atheists.  If Christianity won predominance over every other religious system in the nation, it would be a debate between Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentacostals, and any other denomination you could name. Then it would be between the liberals and conservatives, and ultimately between conservatives or between liberals, the powerful – not the faithful – would control.

People interpret faith differently, and while most people think they believe the right thing, history tells us what to predict what would happen if one person’s right thing and the other person’s right thing were in disagreement.   Anybody who has served on a church board can tell you how much debate goes on about the smallest issues – churches have split over the color of carpet, whether somebody could play a guitar in church, or whether a woman can make an announcement in front.  Even the Protestants in Europe during the Reformation went to war and killed each other over whether the Eucharist was really the body and blood of Christ.

If America were declared a Christian nation, would this tendency to fight over the smallest differences in faith change? Would churches that uphold traditional marriage gain power over those who performed same-sex marriages? Would those who view national healthcare as a Godly objective fight with those who found problems with it? Would the liberal churches or conservative churches dominate the landscape? 

And what about those who were not Christian? Would they find themselves pressured to convert or face losing their rights to hold office, vote, or even own property?

Looking at history, the only way the idea of a “Christian America” that is envisioned would ever be able to “succeed” is by seeking power, suppressing dissent, and persecuting those who disagreed.  It might not follow a particular denomination, but because Christianity itself is so diverse there would need to be a central core of beliefs. There might be a few “true believers” who would carry their message forward without feeling upset by this change, but the majority of the people, including most Christians, would live in constant fear and frustration.

In an age when many Christian conservatives argue that the government cannot properly handle the issue of health care, many of the same people seem to have confidence in the government’s ability to handle matters of faith.  For that reason alone, separation of church and state should be a conservative cause. Religion does best when it stands on its own two feet and does not rely on the crutch of government.  Just as conservatives argue those who receive a lifetime of government funding cannot handle the open market, they should recognize that once churches depend on government “marketing” they will cease to be as productive.

 After a thousand years of religious leadership, the former Holy Roman Empire is now one of the most secular places on the globe. People look at churches as irrelevant antiques. And many government-funded churches in Europe are dying on the vine. This was because religion depended on the government and when the government pulled back, religion folded. If Americans want faith to thrive, it should grow on its own – not be stifled or forced by government. Faith does not need a government handout or increased bureaucratic overhead that would inevitably result.  Imagine if churches were run like the DMV!

This is not to say that there aren’t times when churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations can’t partner with government for humanitarian purposes, but rather that the government should stay out of matters of faith and doctrine.

Rather than seeking power in order to turn the United States into a Christian Empire, it would be better for individual Christians and churches to follow Jesus’ words, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV). The best way to grow Christianity is not through achieving power but through caring acts of kindness and mercy. Evangelical Christians should not seek to become a Christian nation, but they can seek to be a nation of Christians who have been attracted to Christ through their faith and freely chosen to follow Him. If Christians must rely on the power of government to increase their impact on the world, they are doing something very wrong.

Declaring that this is a “Christian Nation” would not make America better – it would make America a nation of robots and would misrepresent the freedom that faith can bring.  America should be a nation where people can choose their own faith and not have to be afraid that they will be marginalized or at a disadvantage when it comes to how their government treats them. America is a big place, and is definitely big enough for all peaceful people of faith as well as those who choose not to follow any faith. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.

Google Tech Talk
August 12, 2009

ABSTRACT
Presented by Chris Seiple.

While the U.S. can summon hard power with relative ease, employing soft power is more difficult. Indeed, smart power suggests that hard and soft power are two sides of the same coin, that our interests are protected when our values are promoted. If Americans want to engage the world with efficient and enduring effect, we must better understand the essence of American power and the foundation of the global public square: religious freedom.

The Institute for Global Engagement promotes sustainable environments for religious freedom worldwide. It studies the impact of faith on state and society, it encourages governments to protect religious freedom, and it equips citizens to exercise that freedom responsibly.

Chris Seiple, Ph.D., is the president of the Institute for Global Engagement. A graduate of Stanford, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the Fletcher School for Law & Diplomacy, he is the founder of The Review of Faith & International Affairs , a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (Philadelphia), a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York), and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (London). His book, The U.S. Military/NGO Relationship in Humanitarian Interventions, is a seminal work in the field, and he is the co-author of International Religious Freedom Advocacy: A Guide to Organizations, Law, and NGOs. Seiple has appeared on BBC, MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, and Saudi TV. He has spoken all over the world, including Tashkent, Doha, Peshawar, Bannu, Moscow, Vladikavkaz, Hanoi, Issakul, Urumchi, Oslo, Hama, and Beijing. A former Marine infantry officer, he also speaks regularly at U.S. military schools regarding national security and religious and cultural engagement.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A law backed by the Ku Klux Klan nearly a century ago to keep Catholics out of public schools is still on the books in Oregon, one of the last states in the nation to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms.

Both Pennsylvania and Nebraska have similar laws, which try to balance the constitutional conflict between protecting students from the establishment of religion in schools and the rights of teachers to express their beliefs through their dress.

Oregon’s law, originally aimed at priest collars and nun habits, survived a legal challenge in the 1980s by a Sikh convert who wanted to wear her turban in the classroom and was recently upheld by the state’s Legislature.

A Muslim teacher in Pennsylvania lost a similar challenge in 1991 to that state’s even older law for the right to wear a headscarf at school. So far, it has not posed any serious legal issues in Nebraska.

That such a law still exists was a surprise for many Oregonians who learned about it when Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act in July, allowing workers to wear religious clothing on the job.

…

Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt wanted to include teachers in the new workplace law. But it was opposed by the ACLU during a legislative session dominated by the recession and one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

Dave Fidanque, ACLU executive director for Oregon, said the law helps ensure religious neutrality in public schools even though times have changed. “It’s not an easy issue,” he said.

Schools have been battlegrounds because “those who feel very strongly that their particular brand of religion is best feel the need to have their religion endorsed by public schools to attract more followers to their beliefs,” Fidanque said.

(Read the full article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i7tADnxuR79MJPcf7h0C8jxGSMGQD9AFCJK00 )

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. attended one of Cleveland’s tent meetings in 1954 in Montgomery and the two created a lasting friendship.  Also in attendance for at least one night of the meetings were local seamstress, Rosa Parks and the Rev. Ralph David Abernathy.

Cleveland marched in several civil rights marches, including the March on Washington.  Cleveland describes his involvement in the civil rights movement in a sermon he delivered during Black History Month on February 11, 2006. 

 
E. E. Cleveland – Black History Month 02-11-06 @ Yahoo!7 Video

. . .

The late senator “was a great champion of church-state separation,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a preparedstatement. “It’s not just that he consistently voted to support that principle — he really got it. He deeply understood that only a high and firm wall of separation between church and state could protect our liberties. He knew the reasons why our Founders established church-state separation and why we need to preserve it. He got how church-state separation protects the rights of both religious and non-religious people.”

Lynn cited Kennedy’s fierce opposition to a famous attempt by his former colleague, the late Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), to push through the Senate a constitutional amendment enabling government-sanctioned school prayer. He also noted Kennedy’s crucial opposition to failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, who was opposed by many religious-freedom activists because of his support for government endorsements of religion.

. . .

“The separation of church and state can sometimes be frustrating for women and men of religious faith,” he continued. “They may be tempted to misuse government in order to impose a value which they cannot persuade others to accept. But once we succumb to that temptation, we step onto a slippery slope where everyone’s freedom is at risk. Those who favor censorship should recall that one of the first books ever burned was the first English translation of the Bible…. Let us never forget: Today’s Moral Majority could become tomorrow’s persecuted minority.”

The vision Kennedy held out was of an “America where the power of faith will always burn brightly, but where no modern Inquisition of any kind will ever light the fires of fear, coercion or angry division.”

Read the full article at: http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4348&Itemid=53

 UTRECHT, Netherlands — (RNS/ENI) Four hundred years after the first Baptist congregation was established, followers have been challenged to continue championing religious liberty.

“We as Baptists must continue to defend religious freedom for all peoples and all religions,” said Denton Lotz, the former general secretary of the Baptist World Alliance, at a special service held last Thursday (July 30) in Amsterdam to mark the 400th anniversary of the Baptist movement.

The service was held in a Mennonite church in central Amsterdam, a short distance from the site of what is honored as the first Baptist congregation, founded in 1609 by exiles from Britain who had fled religious persecution in England.

“If we fail to take seriously the 21st century and merely continue to defend religious freedom as though we were living under King James I, then we will have become irrelevant and our defense of freedom irrelevant,” said Lotz, who served as the BWA’s top executive for 19 years until his retirement in 2007.

Read the full article at http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/08/baptists-mark-400th-anniversar.php

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.

It was a powerful argument – that the people of the State of California have the “raw power” to change the state constitution in any way that they please.

Ken Starr, an esteemed advocate, may have won the battle but lost the war when he asserted that, “the right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”

Chief Justice Ronald George stretched Starr’s argument to explore its dimensions. He leaned in and asked a hypothetical – if Proposition 8 said that homosexuals had no right to form a family relationship or raise children, could that still be done by amendment? Starr said it could. Then George took the argument to the constitutional wall – could the voters also remove the right to free speech? Starr said yes, the voters have this right.

(Read the full article)

By J. I. Taylor –

The Church

The church is ordained of God to evangelize the world for the salvation of men’s souls. It is to reveal unto men the love of God for all mankind. It is to minister charity to the needy, thus relieving physical suffering. Its disciplinary authority extends over its own members only, and over them only to the extent of censure and disfellowship. It is to be maintained in its program of work by the voluntary tithes and offerings of its members and friends.

The State

The state (all civil government) is an association of men for the purpose of securing and maintaining to each individual his God-given right to ” life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is ordained of God to rule over the bodies of men (Rom. 13: 4), not their souls. It is to enact and execute equitable and just laws for the protection of man against man. It is to regard the rights of the minority as sacredly as the rights of the majority. It is to protect the weak against the strong. It is sacredly to guard every citizen in the enjoyment of liberty in matters of religion. It is to lay a restraining hand upon men only when, in the exercise of their right of liberty, they invade the rights of their fellow men. It is maintained by an assessed tax upon its citizenry. Its authority extends to execution of punishment unto imprisonment and death.

[The State] is to lay a restraining hand upon men only when, in the exercise of their right of liberty, they invade the rights of their fellow men.

Why should we Christians desire that the non-Christian be required by law to observe our religious institutions? Why should we ask that the state punish offenders against our church institutions, when God has withheld such authority from the church? Suppose the non- Christians were in the majority, and they should demand that we observe our Sabbath as they observe it? Would we not at once cry, ” Hands off! This is a matter of conscience over which you have no control “? Have they not the same right of liberty in matters religious as we?

. . .

Religious Liberty

Religious liberty is a sacred heritage. Baptists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and others have in the past suffered persecution upon American soil because of the existence of religious laws. Christ said: ” Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt. 18:6 Let us not take the first steps toward violation of the rights of the ” least” of our brethren. To do so means to bring Christ’s condemnation upon us.

The Outlook for a Sunday Law in California

J. O. CORLISS

California is the only State in the American Union without a Sunday law. From 1858 to 1883 a Sunday-rest statute in that State was made so annoying to many of its citizens that it became an object of political contention. The supposed dominant party, through church affiliations, inserted a plank in its platform, pledging itself to maintain the Sunday law for the betterment of the laboring class. The other party went to the polls, on a pledge to repeal the existing statute requiring Sunday rest, on the ground of its hostility to religious rights.

The result was a political upheaval in favor of repealing all Sunday laws in the State of California. About the same time the State supreme court handed down a decision in the case of ex parte Newman, declaring a Sunday law unconstitutional. Since then three attempts have been made by the churches to have the legislature re-enact a Sunday-law statute. These advances have been coldly met, on the ground that any such statute could have no force in the face of the constitutional limitation.

In 1906, however, an astute lawyer was employed to draw up a bill providing for a Sunday-rest clause in the constitution itself. The text of this bill was given to the public months before the legislature met in 1907, and therefore was quite carefully considered, both by the people and by the legislature. To carry such a measure would require forty-five of the sixty-six votes of the assembly present, before whom the bill first came up for consideration. But when the tally-sheet was made up, it revealed that forty-six had voted ” no,” and but twenty had voted ” aye “— a most dismal failure. 

Of course the church people were not satisfied. So they have determined to approach the- legislature of 1909 with another proposition looking to the enactment of a Sunday-rest law. The exact line of their contemplated action has not yet been made public. But the International Reform Bureau has been operating in the State, through its Pacific Coast superintendent, since early in the year. Sunday-rest leagues have been organized wherever possible, and money pledges, in monthly instalments, have been secured from all who would contribute.

In a letter written by the Pacific Coast superintendent regarding the object of his work, he says: ” Our movement in favor of a Sunday rest for California is not intended in any sense as religious legislation.” Yet in another sentence he says: ” The rights of those who refrain from labor on Saturday, or any other day of the midweek, will be guarded by the framing of the bill.” But if the bill to be is not ” in any sense ” to cover religious points, then why provide exemption from its penalties for those who observe some other day? If these refrain from labor on Saturday, some basis for their action must be apparent. There are no social or civil organizations requiring such rest; therefore the only motive for such an act must be that of conscience.

In this case the bill would have to do with religious convictions; and to provide exemption for these would be positive religious enactment in behalf of a limited number. This would be nothing short of class legislation, and inimical to the bill of rights, which declares that all persons are equal before the law of the State.

This would be nothing short of class legislation, and inimical to the bill of rights, which declares that all persons are equal before the law of the State.

But suppose it were civilly admissible to exempt a small class of people from the penalties to be inflicted upon the general offender of a Sunday law, and public sentiment could be led to indorse such a measure on the ground that the exemption clause relieved everybody from hardship. In that case, might not a reverse sentiment among the people lead to the repeal of the exemption clause, and so bring misfortune to the minority? Having committed itself to such legislation in the first instance, how could a legislature resist huge petitions in after-time, which would demand the repeal of the contested clause? Such a clause being enacted by a body of lawmakers, the same body would have the authority to eliminate it at will. And being of a religious nature, prejudice easily could suggest its rejection, to the detriment of a class of loyal citizens. It were far better to leave well enough alone.

If the rights of the laboring class to one day in seven for rest is all that is sought, why not be satisfied with the statutes already designed to guard these rights? An act approved Feb. 27, 1893, as recorded in Statutes of 1893, page 54, of the State of California, provides that ” every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be entitled to one day’s rest in seven, and it shall be unlawful for any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them, to work more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any case of emergency.”

This is as nearly a civil rest-day enactment as could be framed, and should satisfy those who desire only civil legislation securing to the people the right to one day’s rest in seven. But it does not meet the demands of those who are behind the Sunday-law movement. They not only want a day of rest for all each week, but a definitely named day of each week,— the day they have set apart for religious services. But to go so far is to graft a religious sentiment onto civil legislation, and so unite, to that degree, religion and the state.

All honor to California for having so long resisted advances in this direction. How the Sunday-law element will frame their bill for the coming session of the legislature we are not yet informed. They know well that a common statute Sunday law has been pronounced unconstitutional in California. To reach the required two-thirds majority of votes to carry a constitutional amendment, can hardly be realized at this stage. Whether this will be attempted or not, none but those in the secret know.

When we asked him if he had any editorials he would be willing to share with us, he forwarded the following essay prepared in advance of the January 2009 inauguration. While you may not agree with Dr. Newdow’s theology, his views on religious equality are thought provoking.  What do you think?  Post your comments below.  Editor

By Michael Newdow, Esq.
Posted on ReligiousLiberty.TV with the permission of the author.

In 1892, the 1/8th black Homer Plessy was convicted of violating Louisiana law by sitting in a “Whites only” railroad car. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was upheld by an 8-1 margin. “A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races,” wrote the Court, “ … has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.”

The lone dissenter in that case was Justice John Marshall Harlan, who refused to buy into the majority’s logic. Although it was true that whites and blacks were treated “equally” in a literal sense (since the law prohibited whites from riding in colored cars just as much as the opposite), Justice Harlan focused upon the “real meaning” of the legislation: “that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens.”

It took fifty-eight years for the Supreme Court to recognize that Justice Harlan’s view was correct. In Brown v. Board of Education, the “real meaning” of “separate but equal”– i.e., that the nation’s white majority was using the government to affirm its self-proclaimed racial superiority – was put to an end. As a result, the whole of American society changed, so much so that we now have an African American poised to become the nation’s president. Surely, Barack Obama would never have been elected had Plessy remained the law of the land.

And yet not everyone has learned the lesson of Brown, including, of all people, Barack Obama. The message that “we” in the majority are “better” than some minority to which our Constitution guarantees equality is once again about to be sent. This time, rather than with race, it is in the realm of religion, as Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.

Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.

The hypocrisy of this “tradition” might best be seen by simply reading from his inaugural committee’s website. There one can read of a “commitment to … ensure that as many Americans as possible … will be able to come together to unite the country and celebrate our common values and shared aspirations.” With the official theme being “Renewing America’s Promise,” Mr. Obama is quoted for the proposition that “in America, we rise or fall as one nation and one people. That sense of unity and shared purpose is what this Inauguration will reflect.” Thus, in this inauguration, there is alleged “a commitment to organizing activities that are inclusive.”

Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, is surely aware that (as Justice Scalia has written) “government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma.” After all, he was teaching at the University of Chicago Law School when the Supreme Court instructed the nation that “the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.” More importantly, having undoubtedly reviewed Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy on numerous occasions, the President-elect has to realize that the “real meaning” of such formal espousals of God’s supposed existence is to brand believers as “superior” and Atheists as “inferior” citizens, in precisely the same way as the “separate but equal” laws did barely half a century ago.  Actually, that’s incorrect. “Separate but equal” at least pays lip service to the notion of equality. There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another. It is only Monotheism that is provided with an official platform at the nation’s premier celebration.

There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another.

Does Mr. Obama really think that this divisive religious claim helps “to unite the country?” What message does he believe is conveyed when he asserts that proclaiming the glory of God is a “common value?” What could possibly lead him to argue that a “sense of unity and shared purpose” results from intruding into the inauguration a religious ideology that, like every religious ideology, is divisive? He’s a graduate of Harvard Law School, who must have reviewed the text and the history of the First Amendment numerous times. How can such a learned man reckon himself “inclusive” by paying homage to a Supreme Being denied by millions of those he represents?

Two months ago, when the American people chose Barack Obama to serve in the highest office in the land, it seemed that Homer Plessy’s dream had finally been realized. America, we thought then, truly stands for the justice and equality guaranteed in its Constitution. Yet, in a few days, as our new president steps up to the inaugural podium, the reality will be that government-sanctioned favoritism – now for religion, instead of race – will continue. Perhaps some day, as the leader of our nation swears “to preserve, protect and defend” the document upon which Homer Plessy’s dream was founded, he or she won’t simultaneously be ripping it … and us … apart.

By JERRY WINDSOR
Special to Florida Baptist Witness

The earliest Baptists in America stemmed from a group of like-minded individuals who surrounded Roger Williams. It was on Feb. 5, 1631, that Roger Williams (1603-1683) and his wife sailed from Bristol on the ship Lyon and landed at Nantasket, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Roger Williams was born in London in 1603, the son of James and Alice Pemberton Williams. James was an importer and trader. He and his wife had a daughter Catherine and sons Sydrach, Roger and Robert. Roger studied at the Charterhouse and later at Pembroke College (B.A., 1627), a school in the Cambridge University system. Williams became an Anglican minister and on Dec. 15, 1629, married Mary Barnard, the daughter of a Puritan clergyman. While at Pembroke, Williams was one of eight students granted a scholarship based on his excellence in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. This in-depth study of the biblical languages brought some questions to the mind of Williams about such issues as infant baptism, believer’s baptism, religious freedom, and separation of church and state.

Read the full article at http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9835.article