Religious Tension Leads to Clashes in Jerusalem (From Al Jazeera English)

RLTV PODCAST: Jason Hines on The Church, Same-Sex Marriage, and Public Policy

Michael Peabody interviews Jason Hines, attorney and Andrews University seminary student, about the topic of same-sex marriage and why religious groups need to be careful to protect liberty of conscience in their advocacy on this issue.

HISTORY: Nine Children Face an Angry Town (Adventist Review)

EXCERPT:

I’M DRIVING HOME ONE DAY LAST SEPTEMBER with a major assignment on my mind—a formal presentation at an October conference in observance of the fiftieth anniversary of what some have called the most controversial book in Adventism: Questions on Doctrine. My radio is tuned to CSPAN, and on comes a live report of the fiftieth anniversary commemoration of one of the United States’ most significant civil rights events—the integration of an Arkansas high school in 1957 by a group that’s come to be known as the “Little Rock Nine.”

Suddenly, the stark irony in the coincidence of the two events as they unfolded 50 years ago struck me. On the one hand, an entire nation grappling with fundamental issues of human rights—innocent little children in danger of being killed simply for attempting to attend the school of their choice. On the other, a church preoccupied with fixing its own theology, seemingly oblivious that the very rights being agonized over in the larger community were being denied children within its own communion.

Read the full article here.

Russia plan to “kick out cults” could also affect religious freedom (RT)

Some Thoughts on the Implications of the Same-Sex Marriage Trial for Religious Minorities

California’s debate regarding same-sex marriage will become a national issue if the United States Supreme Court decides to hear an appeal from either side on the outcome of the recently concluded Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. In Perry, Federal trial judge Vaughn Walker was asked to decide whether Proposition 8, which reversed a prior California Supreme Court decision upholding gay marriage, was constitutional.
Putting the emotional issues aside, this is the cold reality: If the U.S. Supreme Court takes this case and decides to uphold Proposition 8, this outcome could strip away fundamental principles that also protect religious minorities.

In the last 100 years, the Court has overturned popular state laws that prohibited interracial marriage and laws that forced sterilization of children of unwed mothers who were thought by state legislators to be genetically “immoral.” In these cases, states defended their laws on the grounds that they were protecting the safety and morality of the citizens, but the Court reviewed the cases using the higher level of scrutiny found in the case of United States v. Carolene Products (1938). In Footnote Four, Justice Harlan Stone wrote that cases that met three criteria were subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
A law would receive the higher level of scrutiny, or “strict scrutiny,” (see appendix for an outline) if it:

1. On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).
2. Attempts to distort or rig the political process.
3. Discriminates against minorities, particularly those who lack sufficient numbers or power to seek redress through the political process.

In other words, the majority does not always win just because it is a majority. This reasoning has been applied to the school prayer cases, civil rights cases, and a number of other discrimination cases where the Court has ruled against an abusive majority. The trend of upholding the individual rights of minorities, and in particular religious minorities, has been the subject of intense criticism by many on the right who view some individual rights that run contrary to their religious beliefs as a threat to Christian America.

Added to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Loving v. Virginia which found that marriage was a fundamental right, unless there is some major shift in the Court’s approach, the Court will likely apply strict scrutiny to Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court had based its decision upholding Proposition 8, not on a moral or social safety reason, but simply that the majority should win by virtue of its majority status. The California court simply said that it did not have the power to overturn the will of the voters, and in fact held that “Proposition 8 must be understood as creating a limited exception to the state equal protection clause.”

Thus, the Court admitted that Proposition 8 created a carve-out in the overall spectrum of rights. Justice Moreno, in his lone dissent, stated that “[T]he aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning.”

There is no legal distinction between protected classes in California, regardless of one’s religious qualms, and now that sexual orientation has been exempted from marriage rights (recognized as fundamental rights in federal and state jurisprudence), religious minorities, who have struggled in California, are now subject to exemption.

All this goes to the U.S. Supreme Court at a time when minority religious groups have been facing a rollback of rights that reverses the trend of applying strict scrutiny. Since the Employment Division v. Smith case was decided in 1990, the Court has begun to recognize an increasing number of exceptions to individual rights to practice one’s faith without governmental intervention.

If the Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8, it will effectively eviscerate the principles found in Carolene Products and will create a national destabilization of individual rights. This may not matter in states where religious minorities are protected by the good will of the majority, but in other states rights of religious minority groups may start to slowly disappear.

###

You can read the trial briefs and trial transcripts at the American Foundation for Equal Rights website.  (We do not necessarily endorse all of their arguments, but AFER provides a valuable storehouse of the case documents in Perry v. Schwarzenegger.)

###

——

BRIEF OUTLINE OF STRICT SCRUTINY
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:
First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Third, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this ‘least restrictive means’ requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

RLTV PODCAST: Attorney Karen Scott on the Current Problem of Human Trafficking in the United States

Michael Peabody interviews  Karen Scott about the  problem of modern day slavery and human trafficking in the United States.

Bumper Music: “What’s the Matter with the World” by C Sharp.  Music obtained through MusicAlley.com.

Walla Walla – Shelter for Freedom Screens Documentary Film “Cargo: Innocence Lost”

By Martin Surridge 

A multitude of Walla Walla University students joined local community members and concerned citizens at Shelter for Freedom’s headlining event on Saturday night, January 16, 2010, filling Whitman College’s Cordiner Hall for the screening of the documentary film “Cargo: Innocence Lost.” The screening, which was followed by a panel discussion, was just one of nine events during the four-day series of awareness-building fundraisers, tackling the serious issue of both domestic and international human trafficking. All proceeds from the evening went to Walla Walla HelpLine Women’s Shelter, the focal point of Shelter for Freedom’s campaign, as they search for a permanent home in the valley. 

The screening, as well as the exclusive art auction that followed, may have been held at Whitman College, but the event would not have been possible without the efforts of two student-led organizations from Walla Walla University. WWU Amnesty International Chapter and ASWWU, were behind the scenes during both events and were responsible for a large portion of the work during the four day Shelter for Freedom campaign. 

The film, which intensely presented the brutal realities of human trafficking in the United States, brought together many people from around the Inland Northwest, interested in learning more about the issue, and what they could do to help. For many in attendance, the evening’s highlight was hearing from director Michael Cory Davis, and academy award-nominated actress Anne Archer, both of whom have dedicated much of their professional life to the spread of human rights across the globe.   

Archer—who has starred in “Ghost of Girlfriends Past,” “Fatal Attraction,” and “Patriot Games” with Harrison Ford—founded the non-profit organization Artists for Human Rights. Before she introduced Michael Cory Davis, Archer stressed the importance of the fight against slavery, and the special role that artists can play in the struggle. 

“Artists can be a tremendous force for positive change,” she explained, “They have the unique ability to inspire, educate, and influence change.” 

Archer, a golden globe-winning actress, spoke highly of Davis, calling him “a wonderful example of what a single individual can do,” and that the film “Cargo,” “raises hope for a world without slavery.” 

Davis—who not only directed “Cargo,” but also wrote and produced it—did not rule out the possibility of continuing to make documentaries that address the issue of human trafficking and the sex trade. 

“Human rights is part of my soul,” he said. “I will never stop this work. If I was able to do it for Bulgaria, I have to do it for the children of the US.” 

He went on to explain how vital it is to prevent more people from becoming victims of trafficking, not just in the underdeveloped nations of the world, but in the United States as well. 

“Human trafficking affects the very fiber of society,” Davis shared, “Because we turned a blind eye to it in the third world countries, it’s now in the United States.” 

Davis continued with an explanation of how students can make a difference when grappling with such an overwhelming issue. 

“Take clips of multimedia [regarding human trafficking] and embed them into your social networking sites. It’s something we can very easily change just by altering our decisions and our buying power.” 

Finally, Davis expressed how communities such as Walla Walla, one with a significant number of religious congregations and institutions of higher education, can be very influential in the global fight against human trafficking and other human rights abuses, despite not being as well known as some of the larger cities in the Pacific Northwest. 

“Going through faith based communities can be one of the quickest ways to raise awareness about crimes like human trafficking, and when you engage the students it can have a domino effect.” 

 ### 

For more information:

 

 

Watch more videos from Artists for Human Rights on YouTube.

VIDEO – Pat Robertson Gives Religion A Bad Name With His Disaster Comments – CNN

Arianna Huffington joined The Nation’s Ari Melber and former evangelist Frank Schaeffer on The Joy Behar Show Thursday. The panel weighed in on evangelist Pat Robertson’s claims that the earthquake in Haiti is the result of that country’s “pact with the devil.”

Arianna  Huffington thinks Robertson is giving religion a bad name. “For anybody of faith, even if you’re not God, Pat Robertson is giving religion a terribly bad name, again and again. Remember, this is not the first time. Remember after 9/11, when he blamed 9/11 on the ACLU, and People For The American Way, and gay people. So there’s a pattern here of blaming every disaster on something other than what actually happened.”

h/t http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-pat-robertson-giv_b_424097.html

Pat Robertson, the Earthquake in Haiti, and the Righteousness of God

In 1999, comedian George Carlin wrote, “Religion has actually convinced people that there’s an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever ’til the end of time! But He loves you.”

I thought about Carlin’s statement as I watched a clip of Pat Robertson blaming this week’s earthquake in Haiti on a mythical pact that the people of Haiti supposedly made with the Devil in order to become independent of France over two centuries ago. ““[E]ver since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor,” Robertson said.

Unfortunately, this was not the first time that Pat Robertson or other preachers acting under the guise of Christianity twisted history and theology in order to explain various tragic events. Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Jerry Falwell had this to say, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”

After the December 26, 2004 Indonesian tsunami, John MacLeod, a minister in the First Presbyterian Church of Scotland, wrote, “Some of the places most affected by this tsunami attracted pleasure-seekers from all over the world. It has to be noted that the wave arrived on the Lord’s Day, the day that God has set apart to be observed the world over by a holy resting from all employments and recreations that are lawful on other days.”

After a massive tragedy, it is human nature to try to find out why it happened. The victims must have done something wrong, after all, isn’t everything pre-ordained by God?

This finger pointing was an approach that Christ Himself repeatedly rejected, whether it had to do with blaming a man’s parents for blindness, the experience of violent oppression, or even a natural disaster. In Luke 13:1-5 (NIV), we read the following exchange:

“Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

There is no magic formula for avoiding tragedy. Instead, we need to focus on our own lives before we start placing blame on others. “”Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Matthew 7:3). It doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t eventually point out your brother’s eye goober, but be sure that you don’t hit him in the face with the big stick in your eye when you turn to look at him.

It is so easy to fall into the trap of perverting the good news of Jesus Christ by making Him look like an arbitrary tyrant intent on destroying people who have offended Him. Many people struggle through their faith or leave altogether when they can’t explain why bad things happen to good people or why a “loving” God would willingly torture people throughout eternity.

Jonathan Edwards terrified a generation of New Englanders when he preached in 1741, “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire. . . . You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder” (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God).

Theology along these lines, not found in the Bible, would explain why so many American Christians actively support torture or a preliminary attack on Iran. It explains the push for the death penalty against homosexuals in Uganda. It provided the framework for the Inquisition and cleansing of “heresy” throughout the middle ages. If God is just, and is our example, then why shouldn’t Christians seek to do His dirty work on earth? If forces of evil are going to be tortured in hell, why not send them there early and prevent them from leading the innocent astray?

This doctrine of eternal torture in hell violates principles that most decent human beings hold themselves to – it involves disproportionate punishment and invokes the cognitive dissonance of eternal bliss with the knowledge that another is undergoing eternal torment.

If God was like this, George Carlin’s sense of dark irony would be well-placed. The universe would have two sides, a bright living room where angels float on clouds, and a basement so evil that it would exceed the worst that Satan himself could conceive.

But is that really the character of God? No.

One of the biggest contributions that Seventh-day Adventism has made to Christianity is the rediscovery of the Biblical doctrine that hell is not eternal torment. There are many complete explanations of the Biblical research behind this position online (click here for a good place to start). Essentially Adventists believe that “the wicked . . . shall be destroyed forever” (Psalm 92:7), and that those who accept Christ can, “according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13).

So what does this have to do with religious liberty? Many of the strongest challenges to freedom of conscience and religious liberty on a global basis come from those who do not understand the reality of the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and instead make Him out to be a tyrant. They consider themselves His deputies.

Only when Christians begin to understand the truth of the gospel can they begin to see how important it is to tell the truth the consistency of His character and the all sufficient power of His love. “If you abide in my word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,’” (John 8:31,32).

To learn how you can help the people of Haiti, visit:  www.adra.org/Haiti

Cargo: Innocence Lost Movie

Cargo: Innocence Lost
- Film screening – Saturday, January 16, 5:00 pm, Cordiner Hall, Whitman College

- Documentary by Michael Cory Davis on human trafficking in the United States

- Anne Archer will introduce the film and Michael Cory Davis

- Panel discussion to follow featuring Anne Archer, Michael Cory Davis and law enforcement,
slavery advocates and others with knowledge of human trafficking in the Pacific Northwest

Next Page »