EXCERPT:

The date was June 5, 1917, the first day of the draft. Sousa’s Band struck up “Stars and Stripes Forever” and the 6,000 in attendance at the American Medical Association Convention in New York City rose to their feet as former president Theodore Roosevelt walked across the stage.

The United States had tried to avoid war, but the German U-boats kept a relentless attack on American interests at sea. In a complicated scenario the British were fearful that the anticolonialist Americans would enter on the side of the Central Powers, and there were rumors that Germany would enlist Mexico to join Japan in fighting the United States in return for Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

President Wilson, who won the presidency on the promise of keeping America out of the war, quietly began arming some American merchant ships, and Germany sunk several, an act that former president Roosevelt denounced as piracy. Roosevelt insisted on war, and on April 6, 1917, Congress declared war.

Once at the podium, Roosevelt ripped into those who did not support the draft for moral reasons. “The conscientious objector,” he said, “curtains his cowardice behind the statement that he objects to placing himself in a position where he might take part in killing someone. I’d guard his conscience. I’d send him to the front, but I wouldn’t give him a gun. I’d put him to digging kitchen sinks and trenches so that good men could rest until the time came for them to kill someone. Then I’d watch his conscience to see what it would do.”

Read the Full Article at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1636

As their final assignment for the play, I had students respond to the question, “How would you feel if your religious freedom was taken away?” The responses varied, in both length and reaction. Nearly all of the teenagers in the class are self-described Christians, but their approach toward religion varies from conservative evangelical to tolerant progressives to near-agnostic. Their reactions to a potential scenario in which they were not allowed to practice religion freely ranged from the pragmatic to conformist to vigilant resistance.

– Martin Surridge,  Associate Editor – ReligiousLiberty.TV
********

“I can’t even imagine what it would be like to lose my freedom of religion, because I rely on it so much. Since God gave me life and everything, if I couldn’t worship him and thank him for what he has done then I don’t know what I would do.” – Jake

“I would be very mad. Everyone has a right to religion. You can’t take it away from them –that would be messed up. It would be like someone coming up to me and saying, “Hey, there is no God, so don’t believe that there is.” I would tell them that I will believe in God, even if there isn’t one. It’s kind of like that, its just wrong to say to someone. If I was having my religion taken away I would have a back up plan, and maybe study my religion [in secret].” – Nat

“If my freedom of religion was to be taken away I would be sad and scared. I don’t know if I would be strong enough to stick up for my beliefs if they were to be taken away. I would like to think that I would be able to stick up for them, but I don’t know if I could.” – Kristi

“I would feel really bad because I would feel like I couldn’t worship God the way I thought was best or even at all. I don’t think even if you force people to convert that they truly would in there heart. But If I was forced to I wouldn’t. I would take what ever punishment even death for my faith. Jesus gave up his life for me and it would be the least I could do in repayment. I would stand up for God and I know I would be rewarded in heaven.” – Jamie

“I think that if I was not allowed to choose my religion I would be scared, because if I got caught then there might be severe consequences. There would be no hope or reason to even have religion.” – Dustin

“I think that if I was not allowed to choose my religion that there would be no hope or reason to even have religion. There would be three possible things that I might do. The first thing I might do is practice my religion in hiding. The second is to fight it but that might be dangerous. The third thing might be to conform.” – Daniel

“If my right to religion was taken away I wouldn’t feel a purpose anymore. Without my religion I would feel undefined, like a part of me was missing. I would feel like there was no point to life; because if I don’t have a Savior I have nothing to look forward to. Basically without my religion I wouldn’t have a sense of right and wrong. My religion is what holds my life together.” – Amber

“I would feel ripped of my life line. If it became illegal for me to worship God then I would have a hard time worshipping Him without telling people I do. I want to be able to be joyful in what God gives me. I would feel sad that I would have to hide my worship to even worship him a little. I feel like I have been forced to do something I don’t want to do. I would feel like I would have to get away from every one in order to worship.” – Caleb

“If my rights to freedom of religion were taken away I wouldn’t have any hope or reason for living. What I believe is what gives me courage to face each day and keep going. If that was taken away I would have nothing and no one to rely on, no support, I would have no purpose. I would be constantly angry and have no reason to serve and worship God if how I chose to do it wasn’t allowed.” – Lindy

“I think that if my right to freedom of religion was taken away, it would be like cutting off my air supply. I’d feel a mix of emotions, everything from hopelessness to despair. But, even with my religion gone, I still have God by my side. I know that that will never change. So, even though I’d feel cheated, hurt, upset, and despondent, I think that I’d end up being okay because no matter what happens, I can still have a relationship with the one person that will never leave my side.” – Danae

“If my freedom was taken away I would definitely have to look at what they mean by it being taken away.  But I think that if my freedom to choose what I believe, what church to be and what church to attend [was prohibited] I would be very offended and mad that my freedom was taken away. I feel very strongly about my religion because it is a part of me, a part of my family, and a part of my heritage. I was born into the church, raised in the church and have grown to be a part of the church.  If it ever was taken away, I think I would still practice my beliefs though people would try and stop me.” – Greg

“If my religious freedom were taken away, I would feel as if someone had taken part of my identity away. I have been a Christian all of my life, and so has my family. I would be very sad and depressed, and I would probably covertly still worship God. If someone forced me to give it up, it would be like forcing me to give up a part of myself. I can’t very easily change who I am.” – Alicia

“If my right to freedom of religion was taken away I would feel awful! I would feel like I’d been stripped of my very core. A person’s religion pretty much makes up who they are. So if the right to choose what you believe was taken away, you’d have to change the way you acted. That would be tremendously hard to deal with. I would feel like there was no point in going on if I couldn’t choose to practice what I believed. It seems unfair that Shylock would have to change what he believed simply because he made a mistake. It’s bad enough to have your possessions taken away, but religion too? That’s a really hard blow.” – McKenzie

If someone made me change my religion I would be really confused about why they would. I think it would be weird. I probably would not agree, but act just as the other people in the situation and make excuses. That would make it look just what they want to see. People can’t change your mind. I would be really ticked. I wouldn’t find it to be pleasant to do the same things that the other religion would do.” – Lex

###

Photo Credit: Ravitej Khalsa

SALEM, OREGON – On April 1, 2010, Governor Ted Kulongoski signed a bill (HB 3686) that will repeal Oregon’s 87-year-old ban on teachers wearing religious dress. Although the Governor did express some concern about how it will be interpreted and implemented in a signing statement, the Kulongoski wrote that  ”Repealing ORS 342.650 and 342.655, which prohibited public school teachers in Oregon from wearing “religious dress” in the class room, is the right thing to do.”

In his letter, Governor Kulongoski wrote that in order to address the issues that arise “at the intersection of the teacher’s right to practice his or her religion and the students’ right to be taught in a religiously neutral environment,” the bill will not be implemented until after the 2010-2011 school year.  This will give the Bureau of Labor and Industries the opportunity to create guidelines so that there will be “clarity and predictability” in how the law will be implemented.

The bill overturns bans on teachers wearing religious dress such as headscarves, turbans, and yarmulkes.  Some groups, such as the ACLU, had supported the ban, claiming that it provided students with a religiously neutral environment while other groups, including Sikh groups, were concerned that they could not become teachers if they had to choose between the education profession and their faith.

The passage of HB 3686 provided a clean-up to last year’s Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, and passed with broad bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.  It struck a reasonable compromise and is, as the governor stated, “the right thing to do.”

###

Watch a Video of the Signing Ceremony

Read the bill:  http://www.leg.state.or.us/10ss1/measpdf/hb3600.dir/hb3686.en.pdf

Read Governor Kulongoski’s letter on HB 3686 - http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/2010_Special_Session/Correspondence/Brown_HB3686.pdf

Read more at the Northwest Religious Liberty Association

Watch a Video of the Signing Ceremony

By Michael D. Peabody, Esq.

So what’s the biggest threat to religious liberty? According to J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the answer is found in the strings attached to government funding of religious activity.  Earlier this month, during a speech for the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, Walker said, “What the government funds, it always regulates. Government-sponsored religion is always bad for religion. How can we raise a prophetic fist with one hand and take government money with the other?”

The truth of Walker’s statement was underscored just last week when the Washington State House of Representatives passed HB 1329, now working its way through the state Senate, that cleared the way for unionization of private and most non-profit child care centers if they take government subsidies for as little as one child, and even declares the centers’ employees “government employees” for the purposes of unionization.

In fact, HB 1329 openly declares that “child care center directors” and “workers” are “public employees” for the purposes of collective bargaining, if at least one child attending the center received government subsidies.  It further declared that “solely for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Governor is the ‘public employer.’”

There is an exemption for large non-profits with more than 200 regional affiliates or that send more than $3,000,000 in “membership dues” to a national organization.  The term “regional affiliates” is not defined although it is believed to primarily be aimed at large organizations such as the YWCA.  Large churches might be able to escape through this loophole if they can claim that the local congregations count toward the total of “regional affiliates” and that money sent to the national organization counts toward membership dues, but that will not be an easy argument for most churches that happen to run child care centers to win.

The House analysis claims that the bill would allow private child care centers to continue to have the right to “chose, direct, and terminate” child care workers. However this is boilerplate language for most contracts between employers and employees and it is easy to foresee scenarios in which religious child care organizations would be required to work their way through the union grievance process and defend their religiously-based decisions to a non-religious entity.  How can a religious child care center fulfill its faith-based mission when it has to answer to a secular labor union?

At a time when child care is expensive and parents are having to work longer hours to make ends meet, religious child care centers that have accepted subsidized children are in a particularly precarious position.  Local child care centers are generally small, mission-focused organizations with little money to defend themselves at the legislature. Sponsors of HB 1329, including the labor unions, are banking on this government dependence to generate pressure to dive into the non-profit sector and take over religious employers.  In this case, the labor unions are on the verge of taking over an entire industry.

There are Federal laws which might pre-empt this legislation, or as an alternative, a basis for non-profit exclusion, as well as U.S. Constitutional considerations, but it could be years before these issues could be sorted out by the courts.  In the meantime, if HB 1329 passes in its current form, and barring any court orders stopping it from going into effect, religious child care centers might either have to accept unionization or close their doors.

While there are many good reasons why government funding is necessary, and it is not at all certain that HB 1329 will become law, I would not be surprised to see similar legislation cropping up in more states as labor unions take advantage of government strings to try to control the elusive non-profit sector.

More on government funding to come in a future newsletter.

For more information about HB 1329:

• Read the House Bill Analysis at:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1329%20HBA%20CL%2009.pdf

• You can track HB 1329 and read legislative summaries and materials athttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/Summary.aspx?bill=1329&year=2009
• Also, be sure to read NRLA President Greg Hamilton’s testimony, in opposition to HB 1329, that he presented before the Washington Senate’s Labor, Commerce, and Consumer Protection Committee on February 18, 2010 athttp://www.npuc.org/site/1/docs/HB_1329_Senate_Testimony_2-18-10.pdf

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

“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

 

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.

The key staff person in the White House for this activity is Joshua DuBois, a 27-year-old Evangelical activist who served as Obama’s liaison with the religious community during the campaign last year. DuBois was a student at Boston University and associate pastor at the Calvary Praise and Worship Center in Cambridge. This is a neighborhood that I am personally familiar with because in the 1970s, I planted a congregation there and worked in Boston as a community organizer. The congregation is small, not affiliated with any denomination, but Pentecostal in orientation, made up largely of African Americans and for a while, at least, shared space with two other Protestant congregations in Faith Lutheran Church. Pastor DuBois got the church involved with the Ten-Point Coalition, an effort by African American churches in the Boston area to prevent teen violence and gangs run by the National Ten-point Foundation, also located in Boston. DuBois maintains a mentoring relationship with a teen in Boston even as he takes on the very busy schedule of a White House staffer. He chairs the advisory council as part of his job. The other members include:

• Diane Baillargeon, CEO of Seedco, a New York nonprofit involved in economic development projects. She is a self-described secular member of the council.
• Anju Bhargava, president of Asian Indian Women in America, an immigrant women’s advocacy and help group. She is also a Hindu priest.
• Charles E. Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), one of the largest historically African American denominations in America.
• Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) and a well-known Evangelical leader.
• Arturo Chavez, president of the Mexican American Catholic College and a former prison chaplain who has worked as a community organizer and teacher. He is Catholic.
• Peg Chemberlin, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches and president-elect of the National Council of Churches and a minister in the Moravian Church.
• Fred Davie, an ordained Presbyterian minister and senior staff member at the Arcus Foundation.
• Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and a key player in the interfaith coalition that has pushed for religious liberty legislation.
• Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church, a nondenominational megachurch near Orlando, and a board member for the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA).
• Harry Knox, a former Methodist pastor who is liaison with religious leaders for the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group.
• Vashti McKenzie, presiding prelate of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Tennessee and Kentucky.
• Dalia Mogahed, director of the Gallup Poll’s Center for Muslim Studies. She was born in Egypt and is a practicing Muslim.
• Otis Moss, a long-time civil rights leader, retired pastor of a Baptist church in Cleveland and a board member for both the M.L. King Centerand Morehouse College.
• Frank S. Page, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Taylors First Baptist Church in South Carolina.
• Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith Youth Core, a nonprofit that recruits young people to participate in interfaith community service. He is a Muslim born in India.
• Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, an attorney and Catholic lay leader.
• Nancy Ratzan, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, an attorney and president of Reform Jewish congregation in Miami.
• Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs. She is a lawyer and teaches courses on church-state relations.
• David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and both a rabbi and an attorney.
• William J. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention, the largest historically black Protestant denomination, and pastor of White Rock Baptist Church in Philadelphia.
• Larry J. Snyder, a priest and president of Catholic Charities, one of the largest nonprofit social service agencies in America.
• Richard Stearns, president of World Vision; an Evangelical lay leaders with a long background in business before he joined the Christian humanitarian agency.
• Judith Vredenburgh, CEO of Big Brothers/Sisters of America, the largest youth mentoring nonprofit, and a self-described secular member of the advisory council.
• Jim Wallis, founder and president of Sojourners, and one of the best-known Evangelical social action leaders.
• Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Protestant denomination.

The president has asked the council to focus on four priorities: (1) connecting faith-based and community groups to economic recovery, (2) promoting interfaith dialog and cooperation in the arena of community service, (3) encouraging responsible fatherhood and healthy families, and (4) reducing unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions, strengthening maternal and child health, and encouraging adoptions.

What does this mean?

President Obama hopes to avoid some of the mistakes of the previous administration, such as trampling long-held notions about the proper line between religion and government, and overly politicizing the involvement of people of faith, while continuing the necessary cooperation between government entities and religious charities which has been a key part of America from its founding. In many ways it is a return to the ideas that Colin Powell presided over in the 1990s in the aftermath of the Presidents’ Summit on Community Service. In a time of need in a democracy, elected officials are always going to challenge religious leaders to mobilize their adherents to help out simply because religion advertises itself as being about compassion, love and charity.

—–

Reprinted from http://msahlin.typepad.com/faith_in_context/ with the author’s permission. 

Monte Sahlin has worked to understand contemporary trends in our society and to help congregations and faith-based organizations make innovations since he organized ACT while in college at La Sierra University, Riverside, California, in the 1960s. ACT was a student volunteer organization that served in inner city neighborhoods and with suburban teenagers.

He is currently chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry, a research organization and resource center helping pastors, congregations and other organizations understand new generations and how to engage with them. He is also chairman of the executive committee of the Center for Metropolitan Ministry, a “think tank” and training organization based on the campus of Columbia Union College in Washington, DC, as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Campolo School for Social Change at Eastern University in Philadelphia and in the DMin program at Andrews University. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, a coalition of researchers from more than 40 denominations and faiths who produce the Faith Community Today (FACT) research.

Sahlin is an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, currently serving in the Ohio Conference of the denomination. He served for 12 years at the denomination’s North American headquarters with responsibilites for church ministries, media projects, social needs and issues, and research and development. He then served eight years as a regional vice president. He has pastored small and large congregations in major metropolitan areas and Appalachia.

He is the author of several books, scores of research studies and hundreds of magazine articles. His most recent book is entitled “Mission in Metropolis.” Others currently available are “Ministries of Compassion,” “One Minute Witness,” “Understanding Your Community,” “Trends, Attitudes and Opinions” and “Adventist Congregations Today.” In 2005, he coauthored with Harold Lee, “Brad: Visionary, Spiritual Leadership,” a history and evaluation of the career of Charles Bradford, the first African American to serve as president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America.

Sahlin has worked as director, board chairman or strategic consultant with more than 100 innovative, community-based ministries, church plants and nonprofit organizations over the last four decades. In 1994 he was awarded an Outstand Public Service Award by the United States government and in 1996 he participated in the Presidents’ Summit on Volunteerism as well as the prepatory gathering of 50 representatives of the nonprofit sector at the White House.

Today the Jehovah’s Witnesses are best known for their door-to-door preaching, distribution of literature (especially The Watchtower), and for their refusal of blood transfusions.  In the United States, legal challenges by Witnesses (twenty-three Supreme Court rulings between 1938 and 1946) have strengthened their civil liberties, especially religious freedom, and Witnesses claim generally to suffer less religious persecution today in the U.S. than perhaps anywhere else in the world. 

Although they currently number about 7 million adherents worldwide, Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned or harshly restricted in many countries.  Persecution seems especially strong in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) nations that formerly made up the bulk of the Soviet Union.   

In Azerbaijan, for example, where there are only 800 Witnesses in a population of 8 million citizens, Witnesses are continuously subjected to raids on religious meetings, confiscation of literature, arrests of those attending religious meetings, and verbal and physical abuse by Azerbaijan police.  On July 15 of this year, police raided a house in the Gakh District to confiscate 1,428 Witness journals said to represent “religious extremism.” Police also disrupted religious meetings in Baku and Ganja where worshipers were arrested and taken to the police station for questioning and detained for hours. According to Wolfram Slupina, in Ganja “police and local officials justified their actions by claiming that Jehovah Witnesses are not registered, even though Azerbaijani law does not require official registration for people to meet together in private homes.”

In Tajikistan, where Jehovah’s Witnesses have been legally registered since 1994, the Ministry of Culture issued a decision in 2007 to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses.  Consequently, approximately 600 Witnesses in that country can no longer meet legally for worship.  Reasons cited for the ban were Witnesses’ refusal of military service and their witnessing activities in public places.   

Witnesses seem to receive harsh treatment in Russia also.  Forum 18 News Service reports that four lawyers (from Canada and the USA) defending Jehovah’s Witnesses have been deported from Russia since March.  The deportation strategy hinders the Witnesses’ attempts to defend themselves in seven court cases where Russian officials seek to ban their literature as “extremist.”

According to Forum 18 News Service, public prosecutors across Russia have conducted more than 500 check-ups on local Jehovah’s Witness communities since February 2009.  Witnesses believe prosecutors are conducting “fishing expeditions” that might enable them to shut down Witness headquarters in St. Petersburg and over 400 dependent organizations across Russia.  The nationwide sweep seems to have been ordered by the General Prosecutor’s Office in Moscow, which complained that the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ missionary activity and rejection of military service and blood transfusions “provoke a negative attitude towards its activity from the population and traditional Russian confessions.”  Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia generally believe that the General Prosecutor intends to use Russian laws on religious extremism to restrict or ban worship and distribution of their literature. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses have demonstrated themselves for nearly a century and a half to be  peaceful and law-abiding citizens in those areas of the world where they reside.  They deserve better treatment in CIS countries and elsewhere.  Religious freedom can progress only when assaults against established, peaceful, honorable groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses cease. 

———————————————– 

Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D. is the Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton, Texas.  

The mission of The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Center for Religious Liberty is to advance religious liberty for all persons, in all parts of the world, without regard to their religious, ethnic, gender, racial or national background. Religious liberty is a basic human right that must be nourished and protected by all human societies; it is the cornerstone of modern societies’ efforts to build a more peaceful world. The Center advances this mission by publishing relevant literature, hosting and sponsoring lectureships and conferences, sharing its expertise with media and other public information outlets, and partnering with other persons and groups who share the goal of advancing religious liberty.  The web site for the Center can be found at www.umhb.edu/academics/crl

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

 
On July 1, 2009, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law.  Introduced in February, House Bill 1598 requires Tennessee courts to apply the “compelling state interest” test to cases in which a law substantially burdens one’s right of free exercise of religion. The state now has the burden of proving that the law furthers a “compelling state interest” and is the “least restrictve means” of furthering that interest.

To those unfamiliar with first amendment litigation, this may seem like a confusing set of terms, but the new law takes a very important step forward. Before this law was in place, the Tennessee legislature could pass a law that applied equally to everybody but could inadvertently disrupt somebody’s free exercise of religion.  For instance, the state could pass a law that all high school examinations were to be held on Sunday.  If a student who had a religious objection refused to take the test on Sunday and requested accommodation such as another day, the state could deny the accommodation on the grounds that the law applied equally to all students and that this student had not been discriminated against because of his religion.   It would be a “facially neutral” law that did not “discriminate” against anybody.

This new law would require the state to prove that the Sunday test was essential to further a “compelling governmental interest” and that it was the “least restrictive means” of furthering that interest. In other words, the state would have to demonstrate that it had a very good reason for scheduling the testing for Sunday and a very good reason for denying a student an opportunity to schedule around it. If the state still refuses and the student has to sue in order to graduate from high school and the student wins, the court may award attorney’s fees and court costs as reimbursement for the expenses of litigation.

This new law is a local state response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) which ruled that a similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by the U.S. Congress was unconstitutional.  Tennessee joins 15 other states that have now enacted religious freedom acts.

(Please note that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which addresses any type of government action in  Tennessee is not to be confused with the recently passed Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) which requires Oregon employers to make reasonable attempts to accommodate religious observances of holy days and religions dress of their employers.)

Northwest Religious Liberty Association
Press Release – July 21, 2009

The Stage Was Set

On a sweltering Friday summer evening, and just two minutes prior to going on stage before approximately 2,000 Seventh-day Adventist Christians at the Gladstone, Oregon Campmeeting, the Honorable Representative Dave Hunt (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives for the Oregon Legislature, informed the president and staff of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association that Governor Ted Kulongoski had quietly signed Senate Bill 786, the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, the day before, on Thursday, July 16, 2009.This was like music to our ears, as naysayers who did not fully understand the nature of the bill had been publicly urging the governor to veto it.

Representative Hunt Publicly Recognized as a Champion of Religious Freedom

Greg Hamilton thanked the Speaker for his faithful diligence in championing religious freedom for all people of faith in Oregon, including Seventh-day Adventist Christians, by giving him a plaque with the symbol of the torch of religious freedom. He also praised Representative Hunt “for championing such a noble cause in the State of Oregon” and for “your foresight and leadership in making the Oregon bill the potential model for both state and federal Workplace Religious Freedom Acts.”

From the vantage point of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, the approximately one hundred and fifty individuals that seek out its workplace mediation services each year, the evidence is clear that people of faith in the workplace too often confront impossible conflicts between their employment and their religious convictions.

Understanding the Specifics

What this Act does is clarify the responsibility of employers to accommodate the scheduling of leave time for the observation of religious holy days, or for the wearing of religious apparel in the workplace unless it poses a “significant difficulty or expense” to their business(es).

It also defines “undue hardship” more coherently.

Visit the Northwest Religious Liberty Association online at http://www.nrla.com

SB 786 requires employers to make credible attempts to accommodate religious holy day observance and religious dress. Prior to SB 786, employers in Oregon could make only the bare minimum effort to meet accommodation requirements. This bill will be a step forward in clarifying the responsibility of employers to their religious employees.

The bill had been under fire this week from some religious organizations who promoted the idea that WRFA was designed to prohibit teachers from wearing religious dress. In reality the bill had left an 80+ year prohibition on religious dress by teachers in the public schools in place after a 2007 version of WRFA had failed because it had eliminated the requirement.

House Speaker Dave Hunt who championed WRFA has pledged to work to remove the educational restriction next term, and RLTV will be very supportive of those efforts. Currently Oregon and Pennsylvania are the only states that have prohibitions on any religious dress by teachers.

The Federal WRFA bills, brought over the course of more than a decade would provide a much broader range of religious practices than simply dress or religious garb, however the ACLU and other groups have expressed concerns that overly broad requirements provide no real guidance to employers and could potentially create hostile work environments. Although this was not necessarily a realistic assessment of the effects of WRFA, the federal bill which gained bipartisan support from key legislators such as Hilary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, and Elizabeth Dole still faced stiff opposition.

While the Oregon bill may not be all inclusive, it will provide religious employees who face the most common problems of holy days and garb an opportunity to keep their jobs and their faith. Other issues will be addressed through existing channels under the pre-SB 786 standard and may provide opportunity for clean-up legislation later.

For more information on the bill, visit http://www.religiousliberty.tv/tag/sb-786

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

The Court concluded in its judgement as follows:

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

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

Article 5b Annulment and its Compliance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Infringement

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions

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

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

(1) when prescribed by law

(2) legitimate aim and

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6] European Parliament Written Declaration DC763921EN.doc

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

[8] Ibid

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

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

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

[12] Ibid

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Ibid

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

[20] Ibid, p.32

[21] Ibid, p.36

[22] Ibid, p.38

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

[24] Ibid

[25] Ibid

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

[27][1997] IRLR 30

[28][1997] IRLR 33

[29] Ibid

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

[31] Ibid

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

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

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

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

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

[37] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid

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

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

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

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

[49] Ibid

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

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

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

[53] Ibid.

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.

In this presentation, Scott examines the ties between religious liberty and the Gospel. Everyone has a conscience and God has given to each the inalienable right to choose for Him or against Him. And yet God offers salvation to everyone, even His enemies (Romans 5:10). We are called to be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). In other words, those who profess to follow Jesus, ought to love just as He did, which means that we too will grant others the right to choose for or against God and we too will love them as He does.

http://www.religiousliberty.tv/audio/022809karenscott.mp3