Blue Laws and Sunday Legislation-why do they exist? CNN Video
A video describing some of the religious and secular rationale behind American Sunday blue laws.
VIDEO: R. Gustav Niebuhr: “The False Promises of Tolerance” (Chataqua Institution)
Chautauqua Institution, Chautauqua, NY
Recorded – Aug 6th, 2008
Author and professor R. Gustav Niebuhr argues that tolerating people of different faiths is not enough; that in order to live in a safe and cohesive society, we must go out and interact with them.
Bio:
Gustav Niebuhr is an associate professor of Religion and the Media, director of the Religion and Society Program, director of the Carnegie Religion and Media Minor, and co-director of the Luce Project in Religion, Media, and International Relations at Syracuse University.Over a twenty-year career in journalism, most recently at the New York Times and, prior to that, at the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Atlanta Journal/Constitution, Gustav Niebuhr has established a reputation as a leading writer about American religion. He is a frequent guest blogger on the Washington Post’s “On Faith” column, and he also does occasional commentaries on religion for the National Public Radio program “All Things Considered.
His most recent book, Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America, will be published in August.
VIDEO: VP Candidate Joe Biden on Religion, Government, and the Presidency (Fora.TV)
Recorded in May 2007, Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden discusses the role of religion in American society, and gives his thoughts on the separation between church and state.
Could Chet Edwards be Obama’s Running Mate? Edwards speaks on Religious Liberty
Today, Friday, August 22, 2008, the country is waiting to hear who Barack Obama has chosen as his running mate. One of the names that is surfacing is Rep. Chet Edwards.
Editor
————-
Rep. Chet Edwards represents President George Bush’s home district (including Crawford, Texas) in the United States House of Representatives. A moderate who considers himself a bridge-builder between left and right, and a Methodist who attends the Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas, Rep. Edwards is a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.
The following is text from a speech Rep. Edwards gave on November 19, 2003.
Edwards’ Floor Speech on Religious FreedomMr. Speaker: I rise in support of H.Res.423, which recognizes the 5th anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Religious freedom should be a fundamental right for every citizen of the world. This resolution urges a “renewed commitment to eliminating violations of the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion”. I strongly agree that we should make that renewed commitment, and I imagine this resolution will pass unanimously in the House today. Earlier this morning a number of House Members rightfully criticized religious bigotry and discrimination in Viet Nam and Cambodia, as well as in other parts of the world. I applaud my colleagues for saying the world should not tolerate torture, imprisonment and murder of people simply because of their personal religious faith. I am also deeply grateful to live in the United States, where we do not imprison citizens, because their religious faith is different from others. I believe perhaps America’s greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy is our model of religious freedom and tolerance. The foundation of that religious freedom is the principle of separation of church and state, imbedded in the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles. Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing could be further from the truth as Jefferson stated over a century ago. Separation of church and state does not mean keeping people of faith out of government. Rather, it means keeping government out of our faith. By passing language saying “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion”, known as the Establishment Clause, our founding fathers were putting religion on a pedestal so high that the hands of government and politicians could not reach it. Our founding fathers were right. Separation of church and state in America has led to more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than in any other nation in the world, perhaps throughout the history of the world. Most nations have gotten it wrong, because they have tried to use the power of government to fund religion. With that funding has come regulation of religion and, ultimately, the result has been intolerance against the rights of religious minorities. While I am deeply grateful for our religious freedom in America, I am also deeply disturbed by recent Bush Administration regulations and proposed laws that would limit the religious freedom of American citizens. It would be ironic and tragic for Members of Congress to be pushing for more religious freedom abroad while allowing religious freedom to be denied here at home. Let me be specific. This resolution says, and I quote, “Whereas the right to freedom of religion is expressed in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief” Instead of eliminating all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, the Bush Administration actually supports using federal tax dollars to subsidize religious discrimination. This is known as their so-called Charitable Choice proposals. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. Let me repeat that. Under Bush Administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a federally funded job solely because of his or her religious faith. The Administration, for example, would allow a group associated with Bob Jones University to accept $1 million in federal funds to run a jobs training program, and with part our taxpayers’ money, they could print a sign saying, No Jews or Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job. To allow and to actually subsidize such religious discrimination when using Americans’ tax dollars is offensive. It is wrong and it is unconstitutional. We all know why, for example, a Baptist Church can hire a Baptist minister with their own money to carry out that church’s spiritual mission. However, long-standing federal policy has been that when organizations receive tax dollars, they cannot discriminate in job hiring based simply on a person’s religious faith. President Bush’s Administration wants to change that policy for billions of tax dollars and for potentially hundreds of federally funded jobs. I believe the Administration’s position flies in the face of this resolution, the Bill of Rights and Americans’ personal religious freedom. No American citizen should have to pass someone else’s religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. Not one American. Mr. Speaker, it is right for House Members to stand up for religious freedom in other nations, but I would suggest we should more carefully examine how Bush administration policies will lead to religious discrimination here at home. If Americans are denied the right to a federally funded job, the chance to feed their families, simply because someone doesn’t like their religious faith, then they are being denied the exercise of their religious freedom. Perhaps most Americans to date have not been concerned about these so-called Charitable Choice proposals for two reasons. First, they are not aware of these proposals. Second, most Americans consider religious freedom to be a right protected by our 1st Amendment. But, in the years ahead, when dozens, then hundreds, and ultimately thousands of Americans are denied a job simply because of their personal religious faith, Americans will be outraged and ask how did this type of religious discrimination occur here, in the land of the free. In my religious faith, it is said that we should take the log out of our own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s eye. That leads me to believe that, while we are right today to condemn religious discrimination in other nations, we should stop subsidizing religious discrimination here in America. When we say in this resolution, “Whereas all governments should provide and protect religious liberty” perhaps it would be good for us to practice what we preach. Religious freedom is a cherished right of American citizens. We should stop Bush Administration proposals that would put that sacred right at risk. |
|
VIDEO: Is there room for peace?
VIEWER DISCRETION IS ADVISED
With all that is going on in the world today, it is easy to forget that there is a war going on overseas. I wondered whether to post this video because it has some violent scenes and language in it, but maybe it is time to honestly face what is happening in the name of freedom, and in the name of America.
Musically, I don’t know if anybody has expressed this more clearly than U2 in “Bullet the Blue Sky.” When it was written in the 1980s, “Bullet the Blue Sky” was a harsh criticism of the United States’ policy of arming rebels in El Salvador. The song has a martial drum beat, thundering bassline, and wailing guitar reminiscent of falling bombs. Bono reportedly told Edge to “put El Salvador through your amplifier.” Now Edge could have put Iraq or Afghanistan through the amplifier and turned it up a few notches.
Some people dismiss those who call for peace, but which crowd are you going to add your voice to?
Before you watch the video, please note that viewer discretion is advised.
U2 – Bullet the Blue Sky Lyrics
In the howlin’ wind
Comes a stingin’ rain
See it drivin’ nails
Into the souls on the tree of pain.
From the firefly
A red orange glow
See the face of fear
Runnin’ scared in the valley below.
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
Bullet the blue.
In the locust wind
Comes a rattle and hum.
Jacob wrestled the angel
And the angel was overcome.
You plant a demon seed
You raise a flower of fire.
We see them burnin’ crosses
See the flames, higher and higher.
Woh, woh, bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
Bullet the blue.
Suit and tie comes up to me
His face red like a rose on a thorn bush
Like all the colours of a royal flush
And he’s peelin’ off those dollar bills
(Slappin’ ‘em down)
One hundred, two hundred.
And I can see those fighter planes
And I can see those fighter planes
Across the tin huts as children sleep
Through the alleys of a quiet city street.
Up the staircase to the first floor
We turn the key and slowly unlock the door
As a man breathes into his saxophone
And through the walls you hear the city groan.
Outside, is America
Outside, is America
America.
See across the field
See the sky ripped open
See the rain comin’ through the gapin’ wound
Howlin’ the women and children
Who run into the arms
Of America.
VIDEO CLIP: Compulsion in religion and the freedom to disbelieve
Dr. Ravi Zacharias speaks out in support of religious freedom and against attempts to create theocracy. He also tells a couple of very interesting stories about religious freedom in other countries. It was recorded at a recent event at the Atlanta Civic Center and you might also recognize the event MC. Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”
Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later. While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education. He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years. Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky. He is presently Visiting Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.
See more at http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx
VIDEOS: Independence Day Music
Today, in celebration of July 4th, we are pleased to present a few music videos, some older, some newer from a variety of sources. If you get a few minutes between the hot dogs, fireworks, and parades, take a look. The descriptions are from YouTube.
The Star Spangled Banner – 1944 Theater Sing-Along
During WWII, this version of the national anthem would play in movie theaters before the feature. For the anthem-challenged in the audience, this version has sing-along lyrics.
A Remix of U2′s “Pride: In the Name of Love” video with footage of Martin Luther King, Jr. The person who made the video says, “I dedicate my video to all the people of all colours who took part in the fight for freedom and those that continue to do so all over the World today.”
America’s Pride – Thomas Kinkade
America’s Pride, the first piece in my new ‘Flags Over America’ collection, features the same dramatic sky and waving flag seen in my previous painting, while below I pay tribute to the most patriotic of all American cities – our nation’s capitol.
Students from Mrs. Prior’s class perform American patriotic songs God Bless America, America the Beautiful, You’re a Grand Ole’ Flag.
Lee Greenwood performs “God Bless the USA” at the Freedom Concert for New York – September 11, 2007
Rich Mullins “Here in America”
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xCUfIT5Lm3g (Click to watch)
Apollo 13 – A Story in Music and Pictures
Darryl Worley – “Have You Forgotten”
VIDEO: Michael Newdow in Panel at Boston College on Religious Freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance
This is particularly relevant this election year.
From http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/
October 18, 2006 – Boston College – Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life
Every day millions of schoolchildren pledge allegiance to the American flag and “the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Michael Newdow is a lawyer, physician, and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge reached the Supreme Court in 2004, where Newdow personally argued his appeal to the justices (it was later dismissed on a technicality).
In this panel discussion, Newdow presents his case against “under God.” Joining him in discussion are Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and social critic whose most recent book is Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today (Beacon, 2002); and Phillip Munoz, an assistant professor of political philosophy and American Constitutional law at Tufts University, who is currently completing a book on religious freedom and the American founders.
The discussion is moderated by Alan Wolfe, professor of political science and director of Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.
Panel Discussion – 55 minutes
Watch at http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/
VIDEO: Increasing American Religious Comity (Pew Forum by way of Spectrum Magazine)
Thanks to Alexander Carpenter for finding this great video. Click here to watch and review the analysis: http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/25/pew_video_increasing_american_religious_comity
Although a majority of Americans say religion is very important to them, nearly three-quarters of them say they believe that many faiths besides their own can lead to salvation, according to a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
—
Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.
Some Thoughts
This is an interesting statistic. The question I have is whether or not this kind of thinking leads to a neutralization of religious belief. Is it an effort to minimize differences in order to get along, and if so, does it lead to abandonment of one’s own distinct beliefs?
This could well be the difference between the pursuit of religious pluralism in the fruit salad metaphor where each faith is distinct and has its own flavor versus a smoothie where it all blends together and the net effect is that each part means less. This includes the common elements of faith as well as the individual differentiated core elements of religious worship and thought, or those distinct practices that may require accommodation, whether this involves keeping a holy day or wearing religious clothing.
Part of celebrating religious freedom is the recognition that faiths can peacefully coexist even though they have mutually exclusive beliefs. In other words, you do not have to agree with somebody else’s view of heaven or what it takes to get there in order to honor their religious commitment and their faith. People should not feel pressured to agree that their beliefs are also correct if they do not share them, nor should they force their faith on others.
It takes a lot of work to maintain a welcoming environment in both law and practice for religious pluralism and diversity, but it is far better than the alternatives of neutralizing faith or favoring some beliefs over others.
VIDEO: Proselytism and Religion – A Hindu Perspective
At ReligiousLiberty.TV, we feature information from a wide variety of perspectives. A posting on this site does not indicate endorsement of the views presented, but rather presents it with the intent to discuss and learn.
This is a set of 2 video clips from a Hindu perspective that discusses the attempts of Christians to evangelize non-Christians in India. Are Christians engaging in sincere evangelism or opportunistic exploitation as the video producers claim? Is conversion being unfairly used as a price to pay in order to receive missionary aid?
The video also proposed a “Code of Ethics” for religious conversion which includes language that it should be the result of true spiritual change, not manipulation or coercion. This is likely to increasingly become a larger issue in a global economy and information society. As this issue grows, churches will need re-evaluate their methods of spreading the gospel and seriously consider how they are being perceived in order to avoid sweeping attempts to ban all forms of proselytism.
If you have experience in this issue, please share!