UN Human Rights Council approves proposal for limits on religious speech
Last week 23 of the 47-member United Nations Human Rights Council approved a resolution urging member states to provide ”protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general.”
The act, primarily promoted by Muslim nations, is designed to shield religion, primarily Islam, from criticism in the media and public discourse. “Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism,” the resolution stated.
Canada, all European member states, the Ukraine, and Chile opposed the resolution, however Muslim nations in the Middle East and Africa supported the resolution.
The United States is not a member of the Human Rights Council but does act as an observer. The United States has not participated in the Council in recent years due to its anti-Israel sentiment and failure to act in the Sudan.
COMMENT: This is a serious issue that deserves ongoing monitoring. While we cringe at disrespect aimed toward various religions, the doors to the free marketplace of ideas should not be closed.
EXCERPTS: Douglas Laycock on dangers of protecting liberty ‘only for ourselves’ (Baptist Joint Committee)
From: http://bjconline.org/news/news/0209laycock.htm
Douglas Laycock is the Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. He is one of the nation’s leading authorities on religious liberty law. He made these remarks on January 15 in accepting the National First Freedom Award from the Richmond, Va.,-based First Freedom Center.
EXCERPTS:
If I am remembered for anything after my career is over, I hope it will be that I avoided the Puritan mistake, and that I warned others against it. The Puritans came to Massachusetts for religious liberty, but they meant religious liberty only for themselves. Everyone else had the liberty to go anywhere in the world outside Massachusetts, and in the Puritan view, that was quite enough liberty for the likes of them.
We are not so transparent today about protecting liberty only for ourselves. We do not criminalize belief or expel dissenters from the jurisdiction. But most Americans still care far more about liberty for themselves than about liberty for those they disagree with. And this unfortunate bias is especially pronounced with respect to religious liberty.
…
For too many Americans, their view of religious liberty is driven by their view of religion. For some Americans, religion is a good thing, the most important and transcendent of all things, so religious liberty should be protected and religious observance should be promoted. For other Americans, religion is a bad thing, a source of repression and social conflict and even violence, so religion should be carefully contained and the rights of nonbelievers should be vigorously protected. Whether or not they put it so bluntly, many Americans resolve all debatable religious liberty questions either in favor of promoting religion or in favor of constraining religion. And some questions that really aren’t debatable – they resolve some of those in the same biased way.
…
Religious liberty is for everyone — for believers and nonbelievers of every stripe. If my career stands for anything, I hope it stands for that. The value of religious liberty is not religion, and the value of religious liberty is not secularism. The value of religious liberty is liberty — liberty with respect to choices and commitments that are of profound importance to many humans, and usually of much less importance to the state.
Read the full speech at http://bjconline.org/news/news/0209laycock.htm
Documentary: The End of America by Naomi Wolf
In a stunning indictment of sweeping policy changes during the Bush years, best-selling author Naomi Wolf (The Beauty Myth) makes a chilling case that American democracy is under threat. Investigating parallels between our current situation and the rise of dictators and fascism in once-free societies, Wolf uncovers a number of deeply unsettling similarities-from the use of paramilitary groups and secret prisons to the targeted suspension of the rule of law. With this galvanizing call to arms based on her recent book, she urges regular citizens to take back our legacy of freedom and justice.
Note: RLTV presents materials from a variety of perspectives. This film appears for informational purposes only and does not indicate an endorsement of ideas presented.
Obama puts believers and non-believers on the same footing in speeches (WSJ)
The Wall Street Journal has published an interesting take on Barack Obama by Laura Meckler. Obama has managed to be even more religious than George W. Bush in his speech, but also reaches out equally to non-believers. Meckler’s article discusses whether Obama can reach out to one end of the spectrum without alienating the other.
EXCERPT:
Mr. Obama speaks easily about his own faith. White House events, even those without a religious theme, often begin with a prayer. And the president said he would expand President George W. Bush’s outreach to faith-based organizations.
At the same time, he has taken a series of policy steps that are troubling to religious conservatives, and pledged that decisions in his administration would be governed by science. He reversed Bush policies on funding for international family-planning groups and stem-cell research, and he has moved to rescind regulations that allow health-care workers to opt out of duties that offend their beliefs.
But even when taking these stands, which would be expected of a Democratic president, he often makes a point to say that he understands the other side.
That stance could win him respect from both sides, but it will be difficult to pull off. “Showing respect and being inclusive will only take the president so far,” said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785559998620329.html
Benedict XVI to release encyclical outlining moral and social issues behind economic crisis
In a BBC News article dated March 12, 2009, the author indicates that Pope Benedict XVI is slated to release a new encyclical that discusses the moral and social issues behind the global economic crisis. Apparently it is proving quite a challenge to write. Benedict XVI “says it is proving more difficult to write than he first imagined because of the unexpected complexity of the meltdown.”
Read the full article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7939467.stm
World Trends in Religious Freedom – Hudson Institute
Dayton Tennessee Christian School Sued by U.S. Department of Labor (ASINet)
Excerpt from ASINet:
Last year an injunction was brought against the Laurelbrook School by the US Department of Labor. It alleged that Laurelbrook’s vocational program was in violation of juvenile labor laws. The trial, currently in recess, is scheduled to resume on March 30.
This is a landmark case for self-supporting schools. “If the Department [of Labor’s] view were to prevail at trial,” writes Laurelbrook’s attorney, “virtually any non-academic training would be prohibited.” However, a decision in Laurelbrook’s favor would set an important precedent for continued vocational training at Adventist schools.
As the second phase of the trial begins, many Laurelbrook alumni are slated to testify on behalf of the school, explaining the benefits of a curriculum that includes productive labor and vocational training. ASI member Volker Schmidt is among those who will testify as a student parent and supporter.
. . .
The trial has presented considerable difficulties for Laurelbrook. “This labor case has taken a heavy toll on our institution with notoriety, low student census, immigration stalemates and loan denials due to current litigation,” writes Laurelbrook president Chuck Hess. Massive legal fees along with low enrollment have forced the school to operate at a loss. And expenses for the second phase of the trial are expected to reach $150,000.
(Read more at http://www.asiministries.org/update-feature)
For more information, visit the Laurelbrook website.
Raw Majority Power: Why Checks and Balances Matter
An epic battle played out on two levels at the California Supreme Court on March 5. On a surface level, attorneys fought over a technical issue of whether the Proposition 8 prohibition on gay marriage represented a revision or an amendment. On the deeper level, the question asked was whether there are any limits on the majority to impact the rights of the minority.
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.
CLASSIC: The Proper Relation of Church and State
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.
PRECEDENT – A century ago religious groups tried to change the California Constitution to enact a religious law
The following is from Liberty, published by General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists Religious Liberty Bureau, National Religious Liberty Association, Religious Liberty Association of America, Published by Review and Herald Pub. Association, 1908. Click here to see the original online.
The Outlook for a Sunday Law in California
J. O. CORLISS
California is the only State in the American Union without a Sunday law. From 1858 to 1883 a Sunday-rest statute in that State was made so annoying to many of its citizens that it became an object of political contention. The supposed dominant party, through church affiliations, inserted a plank in its platform, pledging itself to maintain the Sunday law for the betterment of the laboring class. The other party went to the polls, on a pledge to repeal the existing statute requiring Sunday rest, on the ground of its hostility to religious rights.
The result was a political upheaval in favor of repealing all Sunday laws in the State of California. About the same time the State supreme court handed down a decision in the case of ex parte Newman, declaring a Sunday law unconstitutional. Since then three attempts have been made by the churches to have the legislature re-enact a Sunday-law statute. These advances have been coldly met, on the ground that any such statute could have no force in the face of the constitutional limitation.
In 1906, however, an astute lawyer was employed to draw up a bill providing for a Sunday-rest clause in the constitution itself. The text of this bill was given to the public months before the legislature met in 1907, and therefore was quite carefully considered, both by the people and by the legislature. To carry such a measure would require forty-five of the sixty-six votes of the assembly present, before whom the bill first came up for consideration. But when the tally-sheet was made up, it revealed that forty-six had voted ” no,” and but twenty had voted ” aye “— a most dismal failure.
Of course the church people were not satisfied. So they have determined to approach the- legislature of 1909 with another proposition looking to the enactment of a Sunday-rest law. The exact line of their contemplated action has not yet been made public. But the International Reform Bureau has been operating in the State, through its Pacific Coast superintendent, since early in the year. Sunday-rest leagues have been organized wherever possible, and money pledges, in monthly instalments, have been secured from all who would contribute.
In a letter written by the Pacific Coast superintendent regarding the object of his work, he says: ” Our movement in favor of a Sunday rest for California is not intended in any sense as religious legislation.” Yet in another sentence he says: ” The rights of those who refrain from labor on Saturday, or any other day of the midweek, will be guarded by the framing of the bill.” But if the bill to be is not ” in any sense ” to cover religious points, then why provide exemption from its penalties for those who observe some other day? If these refrain from labor on Saturday, some basis for their action must be apparent. There are no social or civil organizations requiring such rest; therefore the only motive for such an act must be that of conscience.
In this case the bill would have to do with religious convictions; and to provide exemption for these would be positive religious enactment in behalf of a limited number. This would be nothing short of class legislation, and inimical to the bill of rights, which declares that all persons are equal before the law of the State.
This would be nothing short of class legislation, and inimical to the bill of rights, which declares that all persons are equal before the law of the State.
But suppose it were civilly admissible to exempt a small class of people from the penalties to be inflicted upon the general offender of a Sunday law, and public sentiment could be led to indorse such a measure on the ground that the exemption clause relieved everybody from hardship. In that case, might not a reverse sentiment among the people lead to the repeal of the exemption clause, and so bring misfortune to the minority? Having committed itself to such legislation in the first instance, how could a legislature resist huge petitions in after-time, which would demand the repeal of the contested clause? Such a clause being enacted by a body of lawmakers, the same body would have the authority to eliminate it at will. And being of a religious nature, prejudice easily could suggest its rejection, to the detriment of a class of loyal citizens. It were far better to leave well enough alone.
If the rights of the laboring class to one day in seven for rest is all that is sought, why not be satisfied with the statutes already designed to guard these rights? An act approved Feb. 27, 1893, as recorded in Statutes of 1893, page 54, of the State of California, provides that ” every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be entitled to one day’s rest in seven, and it shall be unlawful for any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them, to work more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any case of emergency.”
This is as nearly a civil rest-day enactment as could be framed, and should satisfy those who desire only civil legislation securing to the people the right to one day’s rest in seven. But it does not meet the demands of those who are behind the Sunday-law movement. They not only want a day of rest for all each week, but a definitely named day of each week,— the day they have set apart for religious services. But to go so far is to graft a religious sentiment onto civil legislation, and so unite, to that degree, religion and the state.
All honor to California for having so long resisted advances in this direction. How the Sunday-law element will frame their bill for the coming session of the legislature we are not yet informed. They know well that a common statute Sunday law has been pronounced unconstitutional in California. To reach the required two-thirds majority of votes to carry a constitutional amendment, can hardly be realized at this stage. Whether this will be attempted or not, none but those in the secret know.
Add to Google