Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution

[dc[/dcn May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree.  But there is a problem. In recent weeks, some Emory faculty and students have expressed concerns that the University invited Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science.’” This background, they say, poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years.  Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts. 

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950).  Pius XII writes, “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of humans were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls which were infused into humans. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments. 

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life.  There was no death before the fall of humanity.  The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.”  Click here to view the Petition. 

Key California Committee Passes Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Photo Credit www.istockphoto.com/ Amelia Johnson

In August 2010, Noor Abdallah, a Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at Disneyland’s Grand Californian hotel complained that Disney had refused to allow her to wear her hijab, or headscarf, which she wore as a sign of modesty in front of her customers. Disney, which had been working to accommodate her, found a blue scarf that would both fit with the uniform look and accommodate her religious beliefs. The issue was resolved.

Unfortunately, many other religious employees have not been this fortunate and the incidents of religious discrimination based on dress have continued to increase as they have been forced to choose between their faith and their job.

On April 16, 2012 the California Assembly Labor and Employment Committee passed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012. Introduced on April 11 by Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), the bill, designated AB 1964 after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is designed to decrease incidents of employment discrimination against employees who must wear religious dress as part of their religious commitment and adds it to other areas of protected “religious belief or observance.”

Particularly, this bill will address the concerns of Muslims and Sikhs who have been discriminated against in the workplace because of religious dress requirements, or “accommodated” in back rooms away from customers and the general public.

The code presently reads, “Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath of other religious holy days or days, and reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance.”

AB 1964 would add: “and the practice of wearing religious clothing or a religious hairstyle.”

In order to defend against these claims, which can arise based on adverse employment action, refusal to provide reasonable accommodation, or failure to hire, employers will need to be able to demonstrate an “undue hardship” as defined in California law. Under the bill, an accommodation will not be considered reasonable if it requires an employee to be segregated from customers or the general public.

AB 1964 is scheduled to be heard next in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 24.  The bill is being supported by a variety of faith groups including Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims, and Sikhs. The bill also clarifies the employers’ requirement to provide reasonable accommodation by removing some of the ambiguities presently in the law.

A couple of years ago I had the privilege of testifying before the Oregon Judiciary Committee alongside the Northwest Religious Liberty Association in favor of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act which addressed the areas of religious dress and holy day observance. That bill was signed into law and as a result peaceful people of faith in Oregon have experienced greater workplace protections and employers have benefited from the clearer guidelines.

Click here for the latest Status on AB 1964: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1964/20112012/

Taking Alarm: The Importance of the International Religious Liberty Association

Next week the 7th World Congress of the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA) will be taking place in the Dominican Republic.  The IRLA has been in operation since 1893, making it one of the oldest associations that is dedicated to freedom of conscience.

The theme of the conference is ”Secularism and Religious Freedom-Conflict or Partnership?” which will differentiate between secularism in terms of separation of church and state under which faith can freely thrive  and hostile radical secularism which seeks to marginalize religion. Other topics up for discussion will include the impact of the recent government changes in Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

Since 2003, the United Nations has recognized the IRLA as a Category II Non-Governmental Organization and its thirteen regions cover the globe. Although this organization, comprised of a volunteer staff, was started by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is non-sectarian and many other religious traditions who value liberty of conscience are involved in its operation.

In February 24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists meeting in Battle Creek, Michigan adopted a Resolution and Remonstrance objecting to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that had essentially declared the United States a “Christian nation” when deciding that the World’s Fair should close on Sundays. The argument the Court made in supporting its decision, more than the issue of Sunday itself, was the subject of the objection.

The Supreme Court had stated that, “There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”— Supreme Court Decision, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity Decision v United States.

In response, the Adventist Church objected to the assertion that the government could define religion, and stated that “religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the universal Judge.”

Describing the decision, the resolution drafted by A.T. Jones stated, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and the noblest characteristic of the American Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and avoided the consequences by denying the principles.”

In arguments that are remarkably pertinent to the issues we face in 2012, the resolution states, “We, therefore, as Christians, as Protestants, as American citizens, and as men, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the natural rights of mankind, of the Constitution of the United States, of history of more than eighteen hundred years, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, solemnly publish and declare that we are and of right ought to be, free and independent of all connection, direction, dictation, interference, or control, of the government of the United States, in matters of religion or religious observances or religious institutions of any kind or degree; and that, as such, so far as earthly authority is concerned, we have full right to be religious or not religious, to worship or not to worship, to observe a day or not to observe it, according to the dictates of our own consciences and the convictions of our own minds.”

The full document as well as additional materials including the Supreme Court decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) is available at the Adventist Archives.

The IRLA has adopted the following set of principles:

• We believe that religious liberty is a God-given right.
• We believe that legislation and other governmental acts which unite church and state are contrary to the best interests of both institutions and are potentially prejudicial to human rights, and hold that it is best exercised where separation is maintained between church and state.
• We believe that government is divinely ordained to support and protect citizens in their employment of natural rights, and to rule in civil affairs; and that in so doing, government warrants respectful obedience and willing support.
• We believe in the natural and inalienable right of freedom of conscience – to have or not to have a religion; to adopt the religion or belief of one’s choice; to change religious belief according to conscience; to manifest one’s religion individually or in community with others, in worship, observance, practice, promulgation and teaching – subject only to respect for the equivalent rights of others.
• We believe that religious liberty includes also the freedom to establish and operate appropriate charitable or educational institutions, to solicit or receive voluntary financial contributions, to observe days of rest and celebrate holidays in accordance with the precepts of one’s religion, and to maintain communication with fellow believers at national and international levels.
• We believe that religious liberty and the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief are essential to promote understanding, peace and friendship among people.
• We believe that citizens should use lawful and honorable means to prevent the reduction of religious liberty, so that all may enjoy its inestimable blessing.
• We believe that the spirit of true religious liberty is epitomized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Today, the International Religious Liberty Association continues forward with a global focus on freedom. While many religious organizations address religious freedom from the perspective of one nation or another, the IRLA recognizes that what one nation does may affect the liberty of people in other nations, and so efforts are designed to coordinate between people of faith in various countries.

Much of this international focus is probably due to the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Hospital operates, under a single umbrella, churches, hospitals, schools, and colleges and a variety of other institutions around the world. If freedom is curtailed in one place, the impact is acutely felt elsewhere.

News and video updates of the IRLA Conference are going to be made available at http://www.irla.org.

 

 

Why Do Gingrich and Obama Agree on the Supreme Court?

Last week, after three days of tough argument before the Supreme Court, the President created a stir when he said that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his national healthcare plan. Obama further questioned the legitimacy of “unelected” and “activist” judges.

Conservatives went crazy! How could the President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

On December 18, 2011, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich lost significant momentum when he told the nation on Face the Nation that judges, at least in some circumstances, should be called to account for their decisions that ignore the public will, either by being brought before Congress or in some cases by being removed from office. In fact, Gingrich had written a 54-page position paper on the topic, specifically pointing to the 1958 anti-segregation ruling in Cooper v. Aaron. In Cooper, the Supreme Court asserted that the Court’s opinion on the Constitution was more important than the interpretations of Congress or the Executive Branch.

Liberals went crazy! How could an aspiring President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

It is a running joke that any decision that the Supreme Court makes that one disagrees with is made by “activist,” “unelected” judges. If your side doesn’t win, blame the Court! And in the past few years, decisions have gone both ways as the Court, comprised of justices presently appointed over the course of 24 years ranging from Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 to Elena Kagan, appointed in 2010.

The reality is, if Newt Gingrich is right then Barack Obama is also right. Obama can simply read off Gingrich’s paper and make the same arguments. The sitting President, empowered by a sympathetic Congress can do whatever it wants and the Supreme Court can simply stand by and wring its hands. The Patriot Act can continue to exist without challenge as can ObamaCare.

Perhaps this is one thing that Gingrich and Obama can agree on – that the President and Congress has electable, kingly authority. In reality, the only way either one of them would be happy with the proposed arrangement is if their party is in control. Otherwise, the minority party would have no judicial recourse or appeal.

If anything, when politicians think in two- and four-year increments, the Court has perhaps become too political, with justices appointed who are expected to carry forward particular agendas rather than providing long-term Constitutional interpretations. Electing justices would only make things worse. There is a process for changing the Court, but as with changes to the Constitution itself, they take place slowly.

In times like this, we would do well to remember the words of Lord Acton, that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and seek to preserve the integrity and role of the Supreme Court.

###

Is Santorum Right? How to Revive American Protestantism (and Why It is So Important)

By Michael D. Peabody

Like it or not, the GOP Primary season seems to be winding down. Mitt Romney is emerging as the clear winner, and while there may be some chance for another candidate to take the flag, it is “mathematically unlikely.”

So let’s debrief. More than any other time in recent history, specific religious beliefs took the center stage throughout this election. One of the things that deserves closer attention is Rick Santorum’s statement that mainline Protestantism is essentially dead in America, or as Santorum, a Catholic, so delicately put it during a 2008 speech at Ave Maria University in Florida, “mainstream Protestantism is gone from the world of Christianity.”

As a Protestant (i.e. a non-Catholic or non-Anglican Christian), this statement first struck me as borderline offensive. I wanted to jump up and down and shout, “I’m still here!” In fact, there are 45 million of us according to the National Council of Churches which claims that 16% of the electorate belong to their churches. And while the media excoriated Rush Limbaugh for bloviating about a law school student’s choice of extracurricular activities, where were the Protestants when Santorum was essentially saying that they were no longer in the “world of Christianity” and were now in the grasp of Satan?

Not only did Santorum ignore separation of church and state, he focused on the church side of the divide and argued that Protestantism was separated from Christianity – there was Catholic and there was something akin to Satanism. It seems incredible to even be typing what Santorum said, but oddly enough, the only people who seemed to take a serious look at it were the secular media. Protestants seemed to shrug their shoulders and say, “Yeah, that’s us.” But what if Santorum is actually right? Is Protestantism actually dying or negotiating itself away? Then it ought to take lessons on Catholic consistency. There are liberal and conservative Protestant churches and they run the gamut of the American political spectrum on almost every issue.

Protestantism has indeed fallen on hard times as many American churchgoers have grown tired of theology and moral standards that are as wishy-washy as pop culture and look for churches that emphasize a clear moral standard and upright living. And it is true that no church has produced as monolithic a structure along these lines as the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic leaders long ago learned that the best way to address moral issues is to state a moral standard and stick with it regardless of whether people agree with it or live by it. Protestants continue to swim around in Laodicean tap water and are in danger of circling the drain as they are afraid to espouse standards even within their own congregations.

While Protestant churches tend to see themselves as democracies, there is no such thing in Catholic thought. In the Catholic Church there is God, the saints, the Church hierarchy which handles the spiritual welfare, then the Government which serves the civic functions of life, then you. In Protestantism, there is God and then there is you.  In Protestant thought, you could assemble with other people and make a church, or not.

Of course, by removing the Divine seal of approval from the church or civic hierarchy, the very foundations of those establishments were threatened. Kings could no longer claim to rule for generations by Divine Right, and the Pope didn’t hold the keys to salvation and require people to jump through various hoops in order to get into Heaven. In Protestant thought, salvation was only through Jesus Christ and it was indeed possible to have a very real, personal relationship directly with Christ. The structures of the Holy Roman Empire gradually lost their relevance in Protestant countries. In Protestant thought, one could no longer involuntarily participate in sacraments and benefit spiritually from those exercises. You couldn’t find yourself in Heaven just because somebody else did something on your behalf. You, yes you as an individual, needed to intellectually accept certain spiritual realities. While sacraments remained important, they were useless without a concurrent “renewal of the mind,” which was aided by prayer and Bible study, which, until the Reformation, was unavailable to individuals. In fact, before the Reformation, the mere act of translating scripture into a common language was considered heresy as John Wycliffe found out the hard way after he translated parts of the Latin Vulgate into vernacular English. Although Wycliff died of a stroke in 1384, he had so irritated the ecclesiastical powers that be that his bones were dug up and burned in 1415 at the command of Pope Martin V.

The priesthood of all believers, or the idea that believers were seen as equals in the eyes of God was fundamental to the formation of American democracy where any citizen could become active in government and any citizen older than 35 could run for President. People could group together to form churches, and separation of church and state preserved the rights of religious groups and protected them from each other, and preserved the right to be non-religious, or even form your own church. So long as you didn’t hurt anybody else, your beliefs were welcome at the table and your right to believe, or not believe, was jealously guarded.

As an American, you could benefit from unprecedented individual civil and religious freedom brought about by two keeping the sphere of church distinct from the sphere of state. What happened between you and God was your business, and the state didn’t get involved in what your church taught and your church was not allowed to set the agenda for the state. It was this combination of the Protestant ethic and the republican form of government that made America a free country and set the standard for true freedom of religion. This reality was preserved through the rule, not of politicians or prelates, but of law, specifically the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights which kept government from being involved in affairs of the church and vice versa. This environment gave religion, faith, property rights, and entrepreneurship the room to thrive. The only times of challenge were when people tried to use force to rob other people of their God-given freedom and inherent human worth.

While Christianity in Europe has struggled with dying national churches, and where birthright determined the likelihood of individual success, the American form of government has proved a blessing to generations of America.

What threatens American Protestantism the most is when Protestants stop believing in God and begin believing in belief. When belief becomes bigger than God, there is pressure to use the power of the church to influence religious politicians and to extend the power of the church to the government and beyond. We need to remember is that America is not the church. Just because we believe something doesn’t mean that we need the government to make a law to force it on everybody. To put it bluntly, in America, it is legal to believe things that could compromise your own eternal salvation. The state won’t stand in the way of your own theological stupidity. And it would be wrong for the state to assume such power because, in Protestant thought, spiritual actions and even knowledge without a change of heart is worthless.
Conservatives who express great concern about an emerging “nanny state” ought to take notes.

If Protestantism is, as Santorum suggests, on life support, then it desperately needs revival as a belief system that recognizes the value of the unfiltered grace of God. Protestantism, indeed Christianity in general, is here to tell the world that there is something more than what we see around us and to point to transcendent truths. If the American church wants to really reach its Divine potential, it needs to elevate humanity, not by confirming itself to the secular society or forcing secular society conform to its religion, but by pointing the world to a better alternative.

If the faith community can truly embrace this calling, and it is a calling, not a prodding, it will achieve the transformation that it seeks to achieve in the hearts of Americans and people around the world.

“But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9 (NIV).

###

No Compromise: The Story of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

Note: Since this was written, we have received news that the Iranian Judiciary has issued orders that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani be executed by hanging.  Today, February 23, 2012, the White House issued the following Statement:

“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith.  This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values.  The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right.  The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens.  The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion.  The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani’s immediate release.”

——————-

It is difficult to argue for separation of church and state when you are living in a “theocracy.” Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, learned this fact when he was arrested in October 2009 soon after refusing to allow his children to participate in government-mandated readings of the Quran. Nadarkhani had argued that Iranian law allowed children to be raised in the faith of their parents.

Nadarkhani remained incarcerated and in September 2010, a Gilan Province court ordered him to hang for “convert(ing) to Christianity” and “encourag(ing) other Muslims to convert to Christianity.”

The court did provide an opportunity for Nadarkhani to easily escape the gallows – all he had to do was verbally renounce Christianity. Since then, as of this writing, Nadarkhani has had the choice whether to live or die – just say the words and his freedom will be restored. Yet he refuses and remains behind walls at the Lakan prison.

The court asked him, “Do you believe in the elements of Islam which are the unity of God, resurrection of the dead and the prophethood of great Mohammad?”

Nadarkhani replied, “I believe in the unity of God and the resurrection of the dead but not the prophethood of great Mohammad.”

On June 10, 2010, Nadarkhani’s wife, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested under charges of apostasy and imprisoned at Lakan. The authorities threatened to take away their children and give them to a Muslim family. Nadarkhani continued to refuse to convert and his wife was tried without an attorney and sentenced to life imprisonment. An attorney was then retained and that decision was appealed and the sentence was overturned and she was released.

Nadarkhani’s death sentence was appealed to the Iranian Supreme Court in December 2010 and on June 28, 2011 the verdict was handed down. He was to be “executed by being hung somehow until his soul is taken from him.” The Court ruled that there was some question as to whether Nadarkhani had previously been a practicing Muslim “from the beginning of puberty” onward and therefore whether he had actually committed apostasy. The lower court was ordered to determine whether he had been a practicing Muslim between the ages of 15 and 19. If he had been a Muslim during that time, then the court could execute him after giving him an additional opportunity to recant.

The lower court held its re-trial between September 25 and 28, 2011. Before the trial even began, he was asked to renounce his faith. Under Islamic Sharia law[i], an apostate is given three days to recant. The court then asked Nadarkhani to renounce his Christianity and “return to the faith of your ancestors.”

As the case progressed, the story caught fire on the Internet and soon news agencies around the world were spreading the story of a young pastor facing death for refusing to renounce his faith. In an attempt to sway attention away from the story, the Iranian state-supported media outlet, Fars News Agency, dismissed claims that the court had passed down the death sentence because of apostasy, and that Nadarkhani had actually been charged with “rape, corruption, and security-related crimes including extortion.”[ii]

The Fars story added that Nadarkhani was a “Zionist” who ran a “corruption” house like a brothel or “opium house.” The alleged charges were not clear as to what Nadarkani had allegedly done.

In response, Nadarkhani’s attorney, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah told told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, “If he is under trial in another court on other charges, I am not aware. But we only defended him against the death sentence in the case of his charge of apostasy. The charge the court staff announced that I defended during several different court sessions was apostasy and no other charge.”[iii]

Dadkhah, a Iranian Muslim represents Nadarkhani at great personal risk – he himself appealing a sentence of nine years in prison for “actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime,” which is what the government calls his legal human rights work.

Iran’s secret service officials have reportedly given Nadarkhani a book on Islamic literature, and told him that they will return to discuss it with him. The book, entitled “Beshaarat-eh Ahdein,” claims that Christianity is false. If Nadarkhani later discusses the book with authorities and claims that he disagrees with it, this may be a basis for a later charge of blasphemy. As a result, Nadarkhani’s attorneys have advised him to remain silent on the book as any statements he makes could be used against him.

Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State released a statement on September 30, 2011 expressing concern about the case and persecution against Zoroastrians, Sufis, and Baha’is. Clinton wrote, “The United States stands with the international community and all Iranians against the Iranian government’s hypocritical statements and actions, and we continue to call for a government that respects the human rights and freedom of all those living in Iran.”

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said that the prospects for the execution of Nadarkhani, “unless he disavows his Christian faith are distressing for people of every country and creed.”

Today, there are about 300,000 Christians living in Iran – one-half of one percent of the population. Of those, the majority are ethnic Armenians. There are 73 registered individual Christian churches, and almost all Christian activity is illegal. Those who conduct evangelistic activities including publishing pamphlets in Persian languages are harshly punished.

During the early 1990s, religious persecution increased in Iran. In 1993, Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, an Islamic convert was sentenced to die after ten years of imprisonment. Later that year, church leaders were asked to sign a declaration stating that they would not allow Muslims or Muslim converts into their churches. Only two church leaders refused to sign, including Haik Hovsepian who was the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God churches in Iran.

Instead, Hovsepian called the world’s attention to the plight of Iranian Christians. With an increase in international pressure, Dibadj was released from prison on January 19, 1994, only days before he was scheduled to die.[iv]

That same day, Hovsepian vanished from the streets of Tehran, and his body was later found with 26 stab wounds in the chest. Dibadj and three other pastors disappeared and their bodies were later discovered.

Throughout history, it seems that people of most faiths have had some period of persecution and martyrdom for no crime other than telling others what they have chosen to believe. Those who dared to think differently were dangerous to the status quo and they either had to publicly change their mind or face torture or death.

When it comes to church and state issues, Americans have become used to “epic” battles over Nativity scenes, prayers in public schools, or the occasional crucifix in a government office. But in other nations of the world, making the basic choice to believe a certain way can quickly become a matter of life and death.

There is still hope that the sentence will not be carried out.

To Take Action, visit http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=news&id=1142

The U.S. Supreme Court made the Right Decision When It Upheld the Ministerial Exception

Since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC on January 11, 2012, there has been a lot of discussion regarding whether the court did the right thing when it upheld the ministerial exception and denied jurisdiction in a case involving the termination of a ministerial employee. For reasons outlined below, I believe the Court made the right, albeit difficult, decision.

This was the case of the parochial school teacher who in addition to teaching on secular subjects also performed religious functions, Cheryl Perich, who was fired for threatening to file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disaiblities Act when she was not given her job back after returning from medical leave.  The religious employer argued that it was against its religious beliefs for a minister to sue the church, and that these things had to be handled within the church structure.

The issue presented before the Court was whether the anti-retaliation prohibition of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be constitutionally applied to a religious association’s retaliatory firing of a parochial school teacher who taught secular subjects and also performed religious functions and was designated a commissioned minister.

The Supreme Court found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar ministers from bringing lawsuits against their churches in which the ministers claim violation of employment discrimination laws. In this case, the Court found that Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, and therefore the First Amendment required dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.

The ministerial exception gives religious institutions certain rights to control employment matters without interference from the secular courts. It does not, as the Court decision points out, affect criminal, tort, or contract law. So churches cannot use it to shield themselves from liability for criminal acts, negligent behavior leading to accidents, or breach of contract.  But it does protect churches from being hauled into court for religious decisions that have been made.

Some have tried to advance the theory that Perich had not fully pursued the administrative remedies available to her in the parochial system, but that would not have changed the outcome which hinged on the threshold issue of whether the ministerial exception applied to her. If the exception applied, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Another misconception is that the Hosanna-Tabor decision somehow establishes the ministerial exception and adds something new. In reality, Congress specifically built an exception for religious organizations into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII was enacted by Congress to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S. C. §§ 2000e-2(a)). Under the statutory exception, religious employers could prefer members of their own faith in making their hiring decisions.

The actual ministerial exception was born in 1972, when, in McClure v. Salvation Army, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to hear a female minister’s gender discrimination claim. The court found that applying the provisions of Title VII to the employment relationship existing between a church and its ministers would therefore “cause the State to intrude upon matters of church administration and government” which would “result in an encroachment by the State into an area of religious freedom.”

The way it works is that courts in most Circuits rely upon a role-based or “primary duties test” to determine whether an employee is a minister within the exception, and whether or he she can bring suit under Title VII. Several circuits have adopted an approach that religious institutions should be able to choose who will perform certain spiritual functions. The first approach focuses on the employment relationship, while the second focuses on the right of churches to exercise their beliefs more freely.

Perich was, in many ways, the perfect “poster child” to challenge the ministerial exception. The case clearly involved a non-religious issue and for all the world, it looked like the church was looking for a way to fire her in a way that would be against public policy as applied to secular organizations and still avoid being hauled into court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In fact, the EEOC, the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (“AU”) rallied to Perich’s side. In its brief, AU argued that the ministerial exception did not entitle religious entities to discriminate or retaliate for reasons unrelated to religion, and that courts should determine whether an asserted religious justification for an action is pretextual.

In short, a church would therefore need to pass a two-prong test – first, it would have to demonstrate that its discriminatory rule was related to its religious beliefs; second, it would need to demonstrate that its action was not “pretextual.”

The AU brief gave some examples of what it meant to litigate on issues of discrimination that were not particularly related to a church’s doctrine. For instance, a Catholic Church could not be forced to hire a female priest, but an otherwise egalitarian church would not be permitted to fire a Sunday-school teacher when the pastor had a purely personal belief that “women should not work outside the home.”  The examples continued for several pages, permitting organizations to make discriminatory doctrinal rulings but not permitting local churches from acting in contrast to non-discriminatory denominational policies or practice.

Applying an Employment Division v. Smith style argument, AU argued that generally applicable employment laws should apply to churches unless there is a need to safeguard a constitutional right. Why they would appeal to this analysis is particularly curious. The Smith decision created a major problem for free exercise of religion by subjecting religious minorities to the rule of the majority even if it goes against the minority’s religious beliefs. (One can hope that the Court, in the near future, might see the wisdom of applying the Hosanna-Tabor analysis to individual religious liberty rights and re-establishing the Free Exercise Clause that was compromised in Smith.)

The AU brief is helpful in that it provides a concrete example of the depth to which the government and courts would need evaluate in order to determine whether church employment decisions were permissible or not.

Under the approach proposed by AU, church decisions would be open to scrutiny as to whether they were doctrinal or not, and the investigators would then need to go into the minds of the decision makers to see whether such decisions were made in good faith and not merely to achieve a favorable outcome for the institution.

As people often say, bad cases often make bad law and the Supreme Court had just such an opportunity to throw away the ministerial exception in this highly sympathetic case and effectively destroy the wall of separation of church and state by allowing the state entry into the inner workings of the church. Fortunately the Court saw the bigger issues involved and made the right decision.

However by ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.

Church leaders are free to choose ministers who they believe will carry their message forward.

While most religious organizations sincerely strive to provide fair and equitable treatment to all employees, this does not mean that some religious organizations will not abuse the “ministerial exception” to make poor personnel decisions that could lead to costly litigation if they were secular organizations. But organizational decision makes should realize that they will ultimately answer to a Higher Power even if these cases may not be pursued in the civil courts.

—-

For more information on the ministerial exception and its history, I would recommend the Charleston Law Review article by Todd Cole, “The Ministerial Exception:  Resolving the Conflict between Title VII and the First Amendment.” The article is available online at http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Cole.pdf

 

 

Campaigning for Candidates from the Pulpit is a Bad Idea

 

The “Johnson Amendment” prohibits most church pastors from making declarations “in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office.” Is this limitation on freedom of speech constitutional?

One thing is clear – the electioneering ban is not rooted in Jeffersonian views of separation of church and state or the First Amendment which are silent on issues involving the interplay between tax-exempt organizations, including churches and charities, and the Internal Revenue Code. Under section 501(c)(3) of that code, churches and other charitable organizations are exempt from income tax and entitled to receive tax-deductible contributions from donors.

Instead, it is based on an agreement that non-profits make with the IRS. In order to obtain 501(c)(3) status, applying organizations must represent that they will not participate in any political campaign on behalf of, or against, any candidate for political office. A contributor to a church that does not sign up for 501(c)(3) status can still deduct those contributions from his or her income but if that contributor is audited, he or she has the burden of establishing that the church meets the qualifications of a section 501(c)(3) organization.

On October 2, 2011, as part of “Freedom Sunday” which is promoted by the Alliance Defense Fund, 539 ministers throughout the United States defied the IRS rule and identified where candidates stood on the issues and “where followers of Jesus Christ should stand.” ADF claims that before 1954 when the Johnson Amendment was passed, preachers could promote candidates from the pulpit and that the effect since then has been to “silence and chill the pastors.”

So far, it does not appear that the IRS has taken action to revoke the 501(c)(3) status of these churches. In fact, such cases are exceedingly rare. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to address this issue head-on although a lower court, the District Court for the District of Columbia in Branch Ministries v. Rossotti (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/branch_ministries.pdf) did find that the IRS could revoke the tax-exempt status of a religious organization that bought and published a newspaper ad in the New York Times and the Washington Post that specifically and clearly argued against a political candidate. The ad said, “Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God’s laws.” The ad concluded, “How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?” At the bottom, the church was named along with an invitation for readers to make a “tax-deductible donation” to pay for the advertisement.

A church that loses its tax exempt status will operate like any other corporation for purposes of tax liability. They would be able to speak out freely but some contributors may be less inclined to donate if they cannot take the tax deduction.

If 501(c)(3) organizations were suddenly able to engage in partisan politicking, and donors were able to give on a tax-deductible basis, donors could ostensibly deduct currently non-deductible political donations simply by funneling these monies through churches. Churches would not only pass the collection plate for their religious mission, but churches would also be able to use these tax-deductible donations on behalf of particular candidates.

Large churches could bankroll entire political campaigns and receive favorable treatment from those who support them. Politicians could visit with church pastors and lobby them for their campaign support. The lines of mutual respect between church and state could be erased as churches become nothing more than overt political mouthpieces during campaign season.

Because of the tax advantages, it is not inconceivable that churches would become a primary venue for gathering votes as political goals were interwoven with spiritual teachings. A politician who ignored this new reality would be at a distinct disadvantage.

In response, many congregations might, as a matter of policy, refuse to allow the politicking from their pulpits but may perceive that they lose the favor of politicians who receive their support elsewhere.  In churches that permitted politicking, congregants of different political persuasions than their clergy might feel alienated and leave.

As it now stands, churches and charities are welcome to speak truth to power on the issues that matter – from opposing human trafficking, to lobbying for workplace accommodation for religious employees, to pursuing morality and justice. Religious organizations just cannot support or oppose particular candidates or political parties. This is a good thing.

GOP to Consider Accommodating Saturday Sabbath Observers in Nevada Primaries

In the Republican primaries this year, there is a bright spot for religious freedom and diversity.

Amy Tarkanian, the state GOP chairwoman told The Associate Press that she has asked the Republican National Committee to weigh in on whether the religious voters should be accommodated by moving their voting to Saturday night, or moved forward to February 2.

Casino titan and Republican party supporter Sheldon Adelson has raised concerns about the scheduling of the February 4, 2012 caucus, which falls on Saturday, or the Sabbath as celebrated by orthodox Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and members of a few other religious groups.

The proposed changes would allow religious voters who observe the seventh day as a holy day to vote on an alternate date while most Nevada Republicans would be requested to caucus from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on February 4.

If you support religious accomodation for Nevada GOP voters who observe the Sabbath on Saturday, contact the GOP with a message of thanks and support for the decision at http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/contact

Here is a sample message:  ”Just wanted to thank you for considering accommodating members of the GOP whose religious beliefs require that they rest on Saturday.”

10th Circuit Rules Oklahoma Amendment Barring Islamic Law was Unnecessary and Discriminatory

OKLAHOMA –The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling that blocked the implementation of the “Save Our State” amendment. The amendment, approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in 2010, barred “Islamic law” in the state, even though there was no movement to impose sharia law in Oklahoma.

Judge Scott M. Matheson wrote on behalf of the unanimous court, “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses has resulted in concrete problems in Okalahoma.” (Awad v. Ziriax).

Larson test a Gateway to Addressing Laws that Discriminate Between Religions

The 10^th Circuit also applied the Larson test as a gateway to the Lemon test. While the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) applied to “laws affording uniform benefit to all religions, and not to provisions…that discriminate among religions,”  in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 255 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that if a law discriminated between religions, it could survive only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest asserted.”

In the case of California Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10^th Cir. 2008), the 10^th Circuit had described Larson, “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion …. The State may not adopt programs or practices…which aid or oppose any religion….. This prohibition is absolute.” Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.

Proponents of the Oklahoma amendment had argued that Larson was no longer good law because it is used infrequently, but the 10^th Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court had never overturned it, and stated that this rarity “likely reflects that legislatures seldom pass laws that make ‘explicit and deliberate distinctions between different religious organizations’ as contemplated in Larson.”

In fact, the Supreme Court had referenced the rarity of this type of case in Church of the Lukimi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. City of Hileah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)(“The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions.”)

The Larson case facts were mild compared to the facts of  Oklahoma amendment case. In the Larson case, a Minnesota statute imposed certain registration and reporting requirements on religious organizations that solicited more than 50 percent of their funds from non-members. No specific religious group was identified. But the Oklahoma statute specifically targeted Islam, and was defined in these terms: “Sharia Law is Islamic Law. It is based on two principle sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed.” (SQ 755).

The Oklahoma amendment further instructed the courts to “uphold and adhere to … if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.” The law did not prohibit Oklahoma courts from upholding laws of any other religion. The Oklahoma amendment also included language that Oklahoma “courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Because of the lack of Sharia law in Oklahoma, the Court ruled that the harm that the amendment would remedy was “speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.” Further, the court said that there was no way to tell whether the amendment would solve any Sharia law problem since “one cannot try on a glove to see if it fits when the glove is missing.”

The Court further found that Muneer Awad, a Muslim who had filed the case, would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. The court applied on the principle that “[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Kikumara v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950. The 10^th Circuit also noted that although states can legislate in certain areas (including ballot initiatives), “these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”

The full decision is available here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

CONCLUSION: Certainly, if Islamic law had been imposed, it would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. But without that even being at issue, the Amendment became an excuse to marginalize a religious group.

Next Page »