Report says 225,000 Haiti children work as slaves (AP)
From http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/latinamerica/6783415.html
EXCERPT:
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Poverty has forced at least 225,000 children in Haiti’s cities into slavery as unpaid household servants, far more than previously thought, a report said Tuesday.
The Pan American Development Foundation’s report also said some of those children — mostly young girls — suffer sexual, psychological and physical abuse while toiling in extreme hardship.
The report recommends Haiti’s government and international donors focus efforts on educating the poor and expanding social services such as shelters for girls, who make up an estimated two-thirds of the child servant population.
Young servants are known as “restavek” — Haitian Creole for “stays with” — and their plight is both widely known and a source of great shame in the Caribbean nation that was founded by a slave revolt more than 200 years ago.
Researchers said the practice is so common that almost half of 257 children interviewed in the sprawling Port-au-Prince shantytown of Cite Soleil were household slaves.
Most are sent by parents who cannot afford to care for them to families just slightly better off. Researchers found 11 percent of families that have a restavek have sent their own children into domestic servitude elsewhere.
Dr. Adrian Westney Passes Away
Before coming to the United States in 1960, Westney planted churches and pastored in his homeland of Jamaica, as well as in Barbados and Guyana. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in Theology from Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University) in Takoma Park, Md., a Master of Arts in Religion from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University (Mich.), and a Doctor of Divinity from Howard University in Washington, D.C. He subsequently pastored in Virginia and directed Youth Ministries for Allegheny West Conference. In 1969 he accepted a call to serve as principal of Pine Forge Academy in Pine Forge, Pa., where he hosted the first alumni homecoming weekend. From 1976-89 he served as associate director of education for the Columbia Union Conference, and then went on to direct Public Affairs and Religious Liberty until his retirement in 1995.
But Dr. Westney did not stop in 1995. He continued to work tirelessly in the field of religious liberty by helping people with workplace religious liberty problems and hosting a radio program, “”Talking About Freedom” which aired weekly on WGTS radio in Washington, DC.
Despite his busy schedule, Dr. Westney found time to serve on the advisory panel of ReligiousLiberty.TV. His wise counsel and encouragement helped make this independent website a reality in the summer of 2008. His insistence on having a “clear purpose” helped keep this project on track. He did not make impulsive recommendations, but instead insisted on making sure that the tracks were laid out carefully and clearly so that the message was not lost in the prevailing political chaos.
I will miss him very much.
- Michael Peabody, Editor
Event “Slavery: The Fight We Thought Was Over” – Walla Walla – January 14-18, 2010
 SHELTER FOR FREEDOM
“Slavery: The Fight We Thought Was Over”
FILM: “Cargo: Innocence Lost” Walla Walla University & January 14-18, 2010 Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
All the following events are free except for Film Screening and Reception.
EVENTS TO BENEFITS WALLA WALLA HELPLINE WOMEN’S SHELTER |
|
| Thursday, January 14, 7:00 pm, Village Hall, Walla Walla University
“Short History of Trade, Capitalism and the Commoditization of Human Beings”
|
|
| Friday, January 15, 4:30 pm, Catherine Chism Recital Hall, Whitman College
“Be Free: Humanity through Poetry and Music”
|
|
|
Friday, January 15, 6:00 pm, Baker Faculty Center, Whitman College Art Exhibit Opening
|
|
| Saturday, January 15, 10:30 am, Walla Walla Valley Academy Auditorium
“Slavery: The Fight We Thought Was Over”
Speaker: Michael Wisner, Executive Director of Artists for Human Rights
|
|
| Saturday, January 16, 5:00 pm, Cordiner Hall, Whitman College
FILM SCREENING: “Cargo: Innocence Lost”
|
|
|
Saturday, January 16, 8:00 pm, Baker Faculty House, Whitman College Reception/Art Auction
|
|
|
Monday, January 18, 11:00 am, Walla Walla University Church, Walla Walla University “Martin Luther King, Jr. and Human Trafficking”
|
|
Cargo: Innocence Lost Movie
Cargo: Innocence Lost
- Film screening – Saturday, January 16, 5:00 pm, Cordiner Hall, Whitman College
- Documentary by Michael Cory Davis on human trafficking in the United States
- Anne Archer will introduce the film and Michael Cory Davis
- Panel discussion to follow featuring Anne Archer, Michael Cory Davis and law enforcement,
slavery advocates and others with knowledge of human trafficking in the Pacific Northwest
Jan Paulsen on Freedon
Pastor Jan Paulsen, world president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church discusses freedom as a foundational value for human dignity.
Faith, Freedom, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Liberty Magazine)
By David A. Pendleton –
Ever since President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, the chattering classes have speculated endlessly regarding the impact she might have on the future of American jurisprudence. She would bring wide-ranging experiences to the Court: prosecutor, civil litigator, federal trial judge, federal appellate judge, law school instructor, and Hispanic woman. While not a Horatio Alger rags-to-riches success story, she comes pretty close.
As only the second Hispanic named to the Court, her views on race and ethnicity have naturally been of great interest to Court watchers, litigators, and the so-called fourth estate. In fact, for a time her “wise Latina” comments and the president’s equally controversial “empathy standard” were unwelcome distractions and fodder for sharp criticism. But the threatened firestorm turned out to be more a tempest in a teapot, and during the Senate confirmation hearings she conducted herself with aplomb, charm, and dignity, demonstrating not just a nuanced and sophisticated comprehension of the law but a judicial demeanor and temperament to be expected of one enrobed in the marble edifice at the entrance of which bears the inscription “Equal Justice Under Law.”
At the age of 55, she could potentially serve until 2044, should she serve as long as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who served on the Court until the age of 90). Her relative youth, then, is one of the positive considerations that no doubt influenced her nomination.
Perhaps of somewhat lesser public interest, but of no less public importance, are Sotomayor’s views regarding the Constitution’s provisions generally and the safeguards concerning religious liberty specifically. Appellate judges exercise discretion in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, but are necessarily constrained by the binding precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1803 the judiciary has had final legal interpretive authority within our nation¹s system of government and the Supreme Court has reigned supreme over all courts regarding the laws of the land. As Chief Justice Marshall opined in Marbury v. Madison: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”
Three provisions in the U.S. Constitution expressly reference religion, effectively presenting a triptych showcasing the New World’s commitment to freedom of conscience. One is in Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” While age and residency requirements may be prescribed for would-be officeholders, this “no religious test” clause clearly proscribes any religious criterion being applied. (In some jurisdictions in colonial America public office holders had to be of the Protestant faith.)
The other two religion provisions are situated in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This pair of clauses (free exercise clause and establishment clause) proved fertile soil from which has grown the vast body of intricate, if not convoluted, case law concerning religious liberty.
While Sotomayor’s past judicial experience never afforded her the opportunity to opine on the Article VI, Section 3 prohibition against religious tests for officeholders, she has adjudicated cases pertaining to the other two provisions.
A quartet of cases gives voice to her views regarding the religion clauses. Ford v. McGinnis, for example, involved an inmate in a state correctional facility who requested to be served an Eid ul Fitr meal for observance of the Muslim Festival of Breaking the Fast. He wanted to participate in the daylong celebration at the conclusion of Ramadan, which is a holy month of fasting and prayer for Muslims. The prisoner had to be transferred from Rikers Island to the Downstate Correctional Facility for a court appearance on January 7, 2000, which was the very day for partaking of the Eid ul Fitr meal and so was unable to participate at the prescribed time.
Prison officials learned that most Muslims would not observe the feast at a time other than at the appointed time, and so they informed the inmate that no such makeup feast would take place given the generally accepted dictates of Islam. The prisoner in question begged to differ and filed a lawsuit.
The timing of the suit may not have been ideal for the litigant, who filed after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act had been invalidated by the Supreme Court (at least to the extent that it applied to the states) but before the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed by Congress. It afforded, however, the appellate court the occasion to decide the issue squarely on the Constitution, not on interpretations of federal statutes.
A federal trial court had affirmed the decision of the prison not to serve the meal at all since by conventional Muslim standards it would have been too late. By the time Sotomayor heard the case, she was a federal appellate judge serving on the Second Circuit. Writing for the panel, she opined that the appellate court would decline to assess the “objective reasonableness of the prisoner’s belief” and would ask rather the more focused and individualized questions of whether “a claimant sincerely holds a particular belief and whether the belief is religious in nature.”
This was because judges, though learned in the law, did not have the “aptitude to pass upon the question of whether particular religious beliefs are wrong or right.” The decision served a didactic purpose, signaling that courts would look to the sincerely held beliefs of the individual adherent party to the litigation, not solely to whether the belief was an official creed or a “tenet or dogma of an established religious sect.” No group would determine for the individual what the individual in question believed.
Not a favorite of correctional facility wardens, the case made clear that the Constitution’s guarantees afforded substantive rights, not easily dismissed, and certainly not diminished due to the idiosyncratic religious beliefs of the individual asserting the rights.
The case of Flamer v. City of White Plains was a suit by Rabbi Reuven Flamer, a Hasidic Lubavitcher Jew, who requested to erect a menorah, a nine-pronged candelabrum, in a city park. He was precluded from so doing by a city council resolution, supported by Reform Jews, prohibiting fixed outdoor displays of religious or political symbols in government parks. The rabbi asserted his constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and to free speech and argued that the city resolution was unconstitutional.
Sotomayor, then serving as a federal trial judge, struck down the resolution as an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech. A hybrid case involving two First Amendment protections (speech and religion), Flamer is seen as a victory for proponents of unfettered religious speech. Why should religious speech be accorded less protection than secular speech? After all, freedom of religion is expressly protected and, therefore, religious speech should for that very reason be accorded more, rather than less, protection.
At the same time, however, there are those of a sincerely religious orientation who equally revere the Constitution who are less than completely comfortable with the decision. For them, the Constitution precludes use of government property for such religious expression. The establishment clause is not just about disestablishing churches but about preventing the perception of government endorsement of a particular faith. The case is not just a skirmish between conservative Hasidic Lubavitcher Jews and progressive Reform Jews; it also reveals the inherent tensions between the establishment clause and free exercise clause.
Judge Sotomayor, with the deft hand of a judicial maven, identified the relevant facts and applied the legal precedent. After describing the distinctions between a traditional public forum, a nonpublic forum, and a designated public forum, she permitted the expressive action of erecting the menorah, vindicating the right to religious speech in a forum in which no one would mistake the menorah for government speech. No doubt the case would have been decided the same way whether the display entailed the Ten Commandments, a crescent, or a crèche.
Campos v. Coughlin is a third case that can serve as a window on Sotomayor¹s approach to religious freedom issues. Campos also involved incarcerated individuals, self-described adherents of the Santeria religion, though some had previously identified themselves as Christians. What makes this case interesting was not just that the believers were prisoners or that they insisted that they had a right to wear multiple strands of beads; it is important because while such a devotional practice may have been officially optional for Santeria practitioners, it was not optional to the petitioners in question. If the state denied their request for accommodation, the denial could, in their minds, “result in negative and possibly irreversible life consequences for the practitioner.”
In deciding the case Judge Sotomayor upheld their claim, holding that an accommodation was constitutionally required. State corrections administrators, while ever mindful of prison safety and security concerns, were no less responsible as government actors for complying with the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. The right is not absolute and admits of caveats, qualifications, and limitations. But on balance the religious freedoms guaranteed to the prisoners outweighed concerns that the beads might identify prison gang membership (a genuine, nontrivial concern of the warden).
Hankins v. Lyght was a case in which an elderly Protestant minister filed suit against his denomination’s implementation of mandatory age-based retirement. Though he loved his church, he hated what in his mind was its thinly veiled ageism. In this case Judge Sotomayor parted company with the majority and filed a dissent.
She argued that the federal age discrimination in employment statute was inapplicable to a church’s hiring, retention, and employment practices, for to hold otherwise would unduly intrude into matters (of faith) regarding which courts had no competence. Court involvement in a church¹s mandatory retirement dispute would be to trespass on “spiritually intimate grounds of a religious community’s existence.”
With due deference to applicable precedent, she explained her reasons for dissenting. One might infer from her dissenting opinion a profound respect for religious institutions and their faith-informed internal operations. The right to believe belongs not just to an individual but to an aggregate of individuals, and government should studiously avoid becoming embroiled in internecine struggles over religious questions between believers and their communities.
These four cases stand for the constancy of the Constitution. They reveal Sotomayor’s judicial leitmotif of upholding constitutional rights not just in trouble-free circumstances but even under challenging conditions. The Constitution guides the ship of state not just in tranquil waters but even, and perhaps especially, in the Sturm und Drang of the perfect legal storm.
While it might be an exaggeration to call her opinions illuminating, learned, and lucid, it’s not much of an exaggeration. Her published opinions exhibit the painstaking and proficient habits of a judge who is fairly even-tempered, passionate about being dispassionate, and decidedly mainstream. She is not, at least on the religion clauses, an ideologue with a doctrinal ax to grind. Her opinions avoid courting the avant-garde; instead, they are closely reasoned and meticulously written with the fidelity to statutes and studious attention to precedent expected of a neutral adjudicator. Noncontroversial is an apt description of her judicial oeuvre‹and perhaps this is precisely what the president wanted.
These are not the only opinions that evince recently confirmed Justice Sotomayor’s religious liberty jurisprudence. Professor Howard M. Friedman has compiled an extensive list of Sotomayor’s rulings on religion clause issues at his blog, Religion Clause.
Some groups criticize Sotomayor’s jurisprudence as being merely comme ci, comme ça (so-so) or rather moderately tolerable. Others find her to be―for good or for ill―a rather “strict church-state separationist.” Still others laud her as a brilliant jurist.
According to the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, an organization noted for its strict church-state separation, Sotomayor upholds religious “free exercise―even in difficult settings such as prisons and in cases where the religious practices of plaintiffs are unfamiliar,” and “where the governing case law was not settled, she accurately predicted the Supreme Court’s eventual resolution.”
Dan Gilgoff, writing in his God & Country blog for U.S. News and World Report, found Sotomayor’s religion clause cases so middle-of-the-road that he predicted the White House might even focus on them to garner support among religious conservatives.
The American Center for Law and Justice, a traditional values counterpart to the liberal ACLU, doubtless would have preferred a nominee more in the conservative mold of Justice Scalia. But its decision not to actively oppose Sotomayor’s confirmation and to rather generically indicate that it “stands firmly behind the appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy” is telling.
While the U.S. Senate fully inquired into Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, one thing it properly declined to do was inquire into “her own religious faith.” While it is common knowledge that she is a practicing Catholic Christian (and will constitute the sixth Catholic on the nine-member Court), her prayers, devotional practices, and personal theology are not pertinent to her qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a line of questioning could be tantamount to a violation of the “no religious test” provision of the Constitution.
In conclusion, if Justice Sotomayor’s past writings are any indication, her future religion clause opinions should please First Amendment advocates, especially those for whom religious liberty is vital.
David A. Pendleton, a former legislator, adjudicates workers compensation appeals in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Although ReligiousLiberty.TV is not affiliated with Liberty Magazine, we strongly support the magazine and are pleased that the magazine and the author have granted us permission to repost this informative article about the views of the newest Justice on the United States Supreme Court on the intersection of church and state. If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing (it is only $7.95 a year) or contributing to further the mission of the magazine. RLTV Editor
Michigan Church Has the Right to Help Poor People, ACLU Tells Court (ACLU Release)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ACLU – http://aclumich.org/issues/religious-liberty/2009-09/1395
September 24, 2009
DETROIT — In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has urged the Oakland County Circuit Court not to interfere with the church’s mission of serving the poor. A group of Ferndale residents, citing a zoning ordinance, recently asked the court to deny the church the ability to use its own building to provide charitable social services to poor people. The ACLU argued in its brief that denying the church permission to help poor people would violate the Religious Land Use Act of 2000.
“Congress enacted the Religious Land Use Act to protect the fundamental right of freedom of religion,” said Dan Korobkin, an ACLU of Michigan staff attorney who is representing the church. “Churches and other religious institutions have the right to use their property to exercise their religious beliefs — which in this case entails providing charitable services to the poor and underprivileged.”
“We take seriously the biblical command that Christians feed the hungry and clothe the poor,” explained Rev. Catherine Feldpausch, pastor of First Baptist Church of Ferndale. “Using our church to help underprivileged citizens is an essential part of our religious mission.”
Last year, the First Baptist Church made arrangements for a charity for homeless persons known as the South Oakland Shelter to occupy an empty wing of the church where it would provide daytime social services including job counseling and access to telephones, the Internet, and personal hygiene facilities. A small group of Ferndale residents who lived near the church asked the City of Ferndale to block the move, and in March the ACLU wrote a letter to the Ferndale Board of Zoning Appeals urging the city not to interfere with the church’s religious exercise. The zoning board agreed with the ACLU and approved the South Oakland Shelter plan, but the residents have appealed the Board’s decision to the Oakland County Circuit Court. Judge Denise Langford Morris is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the appeal on October 21.
In its brief, the ACLU argues that the Ferndale zoning board was correct to side with the church because federal law prohibits land use regulations that substantially burden the ability of a religious institution to advance its religious mission. Zoning boards may not make decisions that burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object.
“After considering the neighbors’ objections and learning about the First Baptist Church’s religious mission, the City of Ferndale made the right call,” said Korobkin. “We’re hopeful that the court, too, will recognize that religious freedom is paramount.”
Marshall J. Widick of the Detroit law firm Sachs Waldman authored the ACLU’s brief on behalf of the church. In addition to Widick and Korobkin, the First Baptist Church of Ferndale is represented by ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg.
To read the brief, click here.
To read the ACLU’s letter to the zoning board, click here.
China and a Canadian Newspaper call for worldwide one-child policy
This comes from the left end of the political spectrum and presents what may simply be rhetorical posturing, or a harbinger of the next big issue. Aside from a one-child policy we can expect it to trickle into areas having to do with euthanasia, health care, etc.
China has recently been calling for an international one-child policy as an answer to global warming, with perhaps the most chilling observation from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm, being a statement from Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC), “Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. . . . . She admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.”
The issue of “gender imbalance” in China has occurred as female babies are disproportionately aborted in response to the policy. We will be watching these developments closely. RLTV Editor
Editor
EXCERPT:
The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.
None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
Read the full article at: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
Pastor Boissoin’s Lawyer: Case Will Positively Impact Religious Freedom in Canada (LifeSiteNews)
From http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120706.html
EXCERPT:
CALGARY, December 7, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gerald Chipeur, the lawyer who represented Pastor Stephen Boissoin, has said that the recent ruling in favor of Mr. Boissoin “will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada.”
Pastor Boissoin was exonerated by a Court of Queen’s Bench judge last week after being subjected to the proceedings of the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for over seven years. The Tribunal had found Boissoin guilty of “hate speech” for having written a letter to the editor of a local newspaper about the homosexualist agenda.
But Justice Earl C. Wilson last week ruled the letter Mr. Boissoin wrote to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate on June 17, 2002 on the subject of homosexual-rights curricula in the province’s educational system was not a hate crime but legitimate expression allowed under freedom of speech.
“The decision of Justice Earl Wilson of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Boissoin v Lund will have a significant long term positive impact on religious freedom in Canada,” Gerald Chipeur wrote in a summary analysis of the judgment, forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com by Boissoin.
Chipeur states that the bar has been raised substantially on what may in the future be construed as a violation of the “hate” provisions of human rights laws. “The decision established a very high threshold for the conclusion that a publication is in violation of the ‘hate’ provisions of Alberta’s human rights laws,” he said.
Read the full piece at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09120706.html
The Manhattan Declaration: Approach with Caution
Last month a group of over 150 Christian leaders from the Evangelical, Catholic, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox faiths united to sign The Manhattan Declaration (http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/), a document declaring that signers will not compromise on the issues of sanctity of human life, the traditional definition of marriage, and the “rights of conscience and religious liberty.” They have pledged themselves to “civil disobedience” in order to avoid violating these Christian standards. As of this writing, they have been joined by nearly 250,000 who have signed the document online.
The Declaration, drafted by Chuck Colson, Dr. Robert George, and Dr. Timothy George, is in direct response to the recent gay marriage debate and is designed to provide a common base of support for activities such as the Catholic Church’s recent high pressure lobbying of Congress to eliminate language from the national health care bill that would have funded abortion.
While they have claimed they will commit “civil disobedience,” essentially this amounts to refusing to perform activities inconsistent with their faith while enjoying non-profit 501(c)(3) status, and signals a willingness to withdraw from providing humanitarian public services if the government makes such activities a prerequisite for non-profit status or funding. In other words, a Catholic adoption agency may shutter its doors rather than provide services for same-sex couples.
Although the groups have not been able to agree on fundamental theological issues, their unity around these points held in common may initially seem to be an admirable step forward in reasserting the Christian voice in America’s culture wars.
So far so good – churches shouldn’t be compelled by the government to do things that violate their sincerely held beliefs. However, the Declaration does not stop with three issues that many American Christians would easily agree upon as protective of their faith. In the midst of the statement on promoting a “thriving marriage culture,” the writers tuck in an ominous sentence that seemingly comes out of nowhere, “But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.” (Emphasis added.)
The writers do not clearly define what they mean by a “thriving marriage culture.” Since same-sex marriage is merely a hindrance to achieving this goal, there must be something beyond defining what constitutes marriage. Culture is a broad sweeping concept, and passing laws would affect not just adherents but everybody in society.
And what does it mean to “rebuild” such a marriage culture? Despite the imperfections of modern family life, what laws could be passed to restore a “thriving marriage culture”? There are two things that families could use more of: money and time. Tax breaks might help families by relieving a portion economic stress but such changes might only increase family budgets by at most 10% and would require cuts in government services benefiting low income families. Time is a much more valuable commodity and if the supply and demand chain were broken one day a week, families would have opportunity to relax because there would be no reason for the majority of people to go to work that day.
Declaration signers know that it is impossible to pass a law requiring people to “be nice.” However, things can be done to help families. If they are to reinvigorate a thriving marriage culture, sweeping changes must be made across the board to empower families. Right now, with 24/7 commerce it is difficult to give employees a uniform day of rest that they can count on each week so that they can plan family time. (See http://www.keepsundayspecial.org.uk/research/index.php?id=38 for the secular health and safety benefits of a uniform day of rest.) Promoting the family time inherent in Sabbath rest would appear to promote a thriving marriage culture, and would at least require economic penalties against those businesses who required their employers to lose this family time by engaging in commerce.
Such efforts are underway in Europe where Germany has passed a national day of rest for most sectors of the economy. (See http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,462439,00.html to read where the law is being used as a mechanism to block a minority group from practicing its faith.)
In America we are quickly reaching the critical point where expansion of freedom is viewed by some as a threat to religious liberty. Advocates for religious freedom who once took an almost permissive approach so long as the rights and safety of innocent third parties were protected are now actively calling for those types of freedoms to be curtailed.
It is a delicate balancing act, and churches do well to protect their integrity. But if they are also using the power of this unity to “reform laws” and “rebuild the culture” then we are witnessing the emergence of a new threat to liberty. After all, if the problems we face are resulting from too much freedom, a restoration of a prior culture would mean a rollback in freedom.
From a strictly human perspective, the document is troubling as well. It focuses on human power to effect changes in human laws which will in turn effect the hearts of the people – an approach that Christ repeatedly rejected in His earthly ministry. If Christians want to rebuild a moral culture, they must be willing to preach the gospel but rely on the power of God to change hearts – they should not hide behind the power of government.
We are dancing on shifting sands. It may be tempting and even seem safer to join the crowd and push for new laws to change society. It can be frightening to run the risk of appearing in favor of “immorality” if you stand for the principles of separation of church and state, and try to protect the rights of both the religious and the secular. It is true that there are tremendous forces coming at churches from the left but the answer is not for the people of faith to become the threats themselves. Those on left and right should seek to protect themselves and their organizations from those on the opposite side, yet not force their will on the rest of society.
I am afraid we are seeing the emergence of a snowball effect – the forces now assembling will do whatever it takes, and say whatever they need to in order to gain power, adherents, and confidence and will eventually threaten the well-being of all who refuse to conform.
We have no reason to doubt that those who drafted and are signing the Declaration are sincere and trying to do what they believe is best for America. There are many good reasons why it may seem a good idea, but we should raise a voice of caution regarding the unintended consequences of this approach. Christians tempted to set aside theological differences, which include differences in how grace and salvation are viewed so significant that they led to the battles of the Reformation and Inquisition, and unite on points held in common in order to change society should recall the unholy results of such unions. From a Christian perspective, government and even church edicts cannot change hearts, only God can.
As we are admonished in 2 Timothy 3:5, “They will act religious, but they will reject the power that could make them godly. Stay away from people like that!” (New Living Translation)
Add to Google