The Oath Dilemma — Special Contribution to RLTV

“Oh Dave, don’t forget, your oath is today at 9:15.” The words snap my groggy mind to attention. Oath? My boss continues. “Yeah, it will be on the fourth floor, in the administrative offices. It shouldn’t be a problem.” It shouldn’t be a problem. Is that a threat? It shouldn’t be a problem if you keep your idealistic, religious nonsense in check, is the message I am receiving. Really though, my boss couldn’t possibly suspect her newest employee to be one of those Christian loonies uncomfortable with pledging allegiance to the government. I’ve done nothing to give that impression, as there are few opportunities to be a radical when you work in the basement of a public library.

The hour approaches. I make my way to the administrative offices on the fourth floor and am greeted by the receptionist’s cheery smile. I announce that I am here to take my oath and then sit down in trepidation. What to do? I do not want to take this oath. I want to take Jesus at his word when he says, “Do not swear at all, either by heaven…or by the earth…” (Matthew 5:27). At 23 years of age, this is the first time my faith has put me in an uncomfortable situation. And as ridiculous and unnecessary as it may be, compliance with the State amounts to cowardice on my part. And I don’t want to be a coward.

The woman who will administer the oath appears and invites me to join her in a conference room. I’ll call her Amanda for simplicity’s sake. Amanda is clearly a veteran of the oath-administering process, rapidly going through the legal introductory details stream-of-conscious style. But I’m barely listening. I haven’t yet determined if I have the courage to stand up for what I believe. She hands me a copy of the oath and instructs me to read aloud with her, inserting my name at the appropriate intervals (see below). I finally summon the courage to ask, “What if I refuse to take this oath?” My words sound foreign, and I can hardly recognize them as my own. Amanda shoots me a quizzical look, and asks what the problem is. I spare her (and myself) the inevitable awkwardness that would result if I confessed my actual reason: that I believe Jesus said not to. Instead, I nervously declare that I believe in “truth in all speech” and taking oaths violates my claimed probity in language. I’m not sure if I made any sense, because a moment later, I am treated to a wide-eyed, grandiose discourse of our founding father’s vision of government, and that the Constitution they formulated wants to protect people like me, by whom I can only imagine she means subversive lunatics. Amanda then informs me that everyone takes this oath, from the newly elected Congressional representatives to every library employee. Swearing to defend the Constitution means swearing to protect justice, liberty, etc. You know, good things.

Still unconvinced, I ask again what would happen if I refused to take the oath. “Well,” Amanda intones, “you would not be eligible to work for the City of _______.” There it is. My job and my paycheck are on the line. She quickly follows up by mentioning that I have the option of merely affirming the oath in lieu of swearing. I briefly wonder if any difference is merely semantic, but a moment later I am faithfully affirming that I will defend the Constitution against all enemies from my cubicle in the basement.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I try to say “affirm” with radical gusto, but I instead sound awkwardly patriotic. Once finished, I notice that my signature is also required. I sign away my remaining principles, not stopping to think about how a signature is probably just simply swearing on paper. Amanda sweeps up my signature and bids me goodbye. I slink back down to the basement while glumly informing my wife via text message that she married a spineless wuss.

Sure, this was no Jesus vs. Pilate, and although I poke fun, I think about the encounter often. I can’t be sure that if the “affirm” loophole were unavailable to me, I wouldn’t have sworn the oath anyway. It’s likely that when the chips are down, and my financial well-being is at stake, I can’t let Jesus get in the way, whether I am interpreting him correctly or not. Just give me my paycheck. I can only pray for the courage to do otherwise.

Now, this is not to say that Jesus commands us to be anarchists, or that one must choose between God and the Government at every turn. We must remember Romans 13, that government is instituted by God, his servant for our good. But I would hope that we do not confuse “supporting and defending the Constitution” with the proclamation of the Gospel. Oath taking is serious business, and there is no more decisive oath normative for Christian lives than baptism.

After all, the interests of the State and the interests of the Church probably coincide less frequently than either would have us believe. If there are no longer any visible differences between the followers of Caesar and the devotees of Christ, the Church’s capacity to advance the Kingdom of God is severely compromised. It seems to me that oaths of any sort, and to any government, obfuscate the transcendence of the Kingdom. Along with the Church Father Tertullian, we would do well to remember that Christians acknowledge no commonwealth smaller than the entire world.

Dave graduated from college with bachelor’s degrees in English and religion and is now studying theology at the graduate level. In addition to confusing library employees, Dave enjoys college basketball, practicing his imaginary golf swing, and spending time with his wife.

The Health-Religion Connection by Joshua Crouch

The struggle between faith-healing and public health services may not be a mainstream topic, yet it continues to rage throughout our nation. Oregon has recently had a string of adolescent deaths tied to extreme Christian conservatism. The Christian Science Church has pushed law makers to allow parents to exempt their children from all medical treatment, replacing science with the prayers of the fervent. This has led to a moral and philosophical debate within not only Oregonian law, but also throughout our nation; what place does religion hold within our healthcare? It is a debate that is hardly new. Health and religion have historically been synonymous topics. Early Mediterranean and Mesopotamian societies worshiped gods such as Baal, Demeter, Isis, and Dionysius, who were all associated with fertility and health in some aspect. It was impossible to escape this symbiotic relationship between religion and vitality among many early civilizations and healthcare’s origins may have been found within religious faith.

Countless modern lifestyle choices, as well as health practices, are rooted in religious beliefs. Jews don’t eat pork because the Torah strictly forbids it (Leviticus 11:7), Muslims avoid alcohol because of the words of Muhammad found within the Qur’an (Surah 5:90), and according to the Bible, Christians are supposed to shun premarital sex (1^st Corinthians 7:2). Contemporary epidemiologists and public health professionals are beginning to realize this connection between health and faith. The Journal of Religion and Health is a quarterly journal that is solely dedicated to research within this topic. Numerous studies and have been focused on this simple question: does religion affect health?

Increasing evidence is showing that physical, mental and emotional well being are attached to religion. Drs. Christopher G. Ellison and Linda K. George co-wrote a paper entitled, “Religious Involvement, Social Ties, and Social Support in a Southeastern Community.” This study used scientific reasoning to identify empirical evidence regarding customary churchgoers compared with those that don’t attend religious ceremonies regularly. Regular attendees of church reported, “…larger social networks, more contact with network members, more types of social support received, and more favorable perceptions of the quality of their social relationships than did their unchurched counterparts.” Another similar study considered the effects of religion on, “health practices, social support, [and] psychosocial resources such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, and belief structures such as sense of coherence.” The difficulty in isolating confounding statistics and creating a solid scientific experiment to measure the effects of religion on faith is obviously complicated at best. Therefore, continued study is important to help find empirical evidence of a shared relationship between spirituality and physical well-being.

Although it is difficult to pin-point pragmatic data regarding the effects of religion on health, the consensus of many professionals is that a relationship does exist. One study sums up this connection perfectly, “An important empirical question to pursue is whether positive emotions are among the active ingredients that account for the benefits that religious practices have for physical and mental health.” The evidence is so palpable that medical schools around the country have begun requiring students to take courses in spirituality and health. Physicians have until recently separated the scientific world of medicine from the subjective realm of faith, yet more and more doctors are asking patients about their spiritual lives. Pioneering this frontier is the Seventh-day Adventist medical center located in Loma Linda, California. Doctors at this institution regularly ask patients if they would like to pray before surgeries and are very open about melding spiritual communication with medical aid. Seventh-day Adventists, a protestant denomination very mindful of dietary practices, abstain from pork, alcohol, smoking, and focus on healthy lifestyles as part of their Christian journey.

While the full effects of religion on health may not be understood, it is becoming increasingly evident that your sacred community can aid in much more than just an existential spiritual journey. Extremism on either side continues to be dangerous though, whether it’s scientists denying someone’s faith or zealots ignoring logic. Therefore, perhaps we should follow the advice of Siddhartha and continue down the Middle Path.

After living in France and traveling in South America, Europe, and the Middle East, Joshua Crouch graduated from La Sierra University with a B.A. in history and is now a graduate student at Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health in Loma Linda, California.

A Short History Of The Conscientious Objector (Liberty Magazine)

Michael Peabody, editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, writes for the July / August 2010 issue of Liberty Magazine.  The full article is available in print and online at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1636

EXCERPT:

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

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

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

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

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

RLTV PODCAST – “Under the Blood Banner” Eric Kreye talks about Growing Up in Hitler’s Germany

 

Eric Kreye, whose story is told in  the book Under the Blood Banner: The Story of a Hitler Youth talks with Michael Peabody about growing up in Hitler’s Germany.  Born in America but raised in Germany, Eric describes how he was beaten by his teacher when he could not recite Hitler’s life story, how his father helped him avoid many of the Hitler Youth activities, how his family hid a Jewish woman and her daughter from the Gestapo, what it was like when the American military moved into Germany, and how he and his brother came to America.

To read “Under the Blood Banner” online visit: http://www.amazingjoy.com/frame_contents.htm

The book is also available in print from TEACH Services for $12.95.

Listen to the Interview:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

RLTV PODCAST: Jason Hines – A Passion for Freedom

Attorneys Jason Hines and Michael Peabody discuss principles of  liberty of conscience.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

ANALYSIS: Deflationary Depression and Purging To Come (The International Forecaster)

Read the full article: http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/Deflationary_Depression_and_Purging_To_Come

EXCERPT:

It was a year and one-half ago we told you that $800 billion in stimulus wasn’t enough. That is now proving to be the case. Get ready for another liquidity barrage, called quantitative easing. It will also mean real interest rates will rise again. The backbone of most all nations of the world is debt not gold, silver or a basket of commodities. Greece is being blamed, but all told, 19 nations are on the edge of bankruptcy. In fact, central banks in these countries are among the biggest speculators. In the euro zone countries cannot print money so they sell bonds in spite of the rules of the bailout. Many are having a hard time selling bonds. Thus other nations are secretly doing so.

There is talk of another Northern European currency backed by gold. If that happens the dollar will fall because it won’t be able to compete. Those in the southern tier will have to return to their own currencies and do as Argentina did ten years ago. Those long dollars do not get too comfortable.

EDITORIAL: FTC floats Drudge tax

Read the full article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/4/ftc-floats-drudge-tax/

EXCERPT:

The ideas being batted around to save the industry share a common theme: They are designed to empower bureaucrats, not consumers. For instance, one proposal would, “Allow news organizations to agree jointly on a mechanism to require news aggregators and others to pay for the use of online content, perhaps through the use of copyright licenses.”

In other words, government policy would encourage a tax on websites like the Drudge Report, a must-read source for the news links of the day, so that the agency can redistribute the funds collected to various newspapers. Such a tax would hit other news aggregators, such as Digg, Fark and Reddit, which not only gather links, but provide a forum for a lively and entertaining discussion of the issues raised by the stories. Fostering a robust public-policy debate, not saving a particular business model, should be the goal of journalism in the first place.

Take A Quick Survey! Win a T-Shirt!

Just in time for our 2-year Anniversary, ReligiousLiberty.TV is giving one of our fancy new T-shirts to a lucky person who completes our short survey. In turn, we’ll find out how to make it an even better website.

To enter, click this link and get started.  Must provide your name and email address. If you win, we’ll contact you for shipping information.  Drawing to be held on June 1, 2010.    (People from around the world are invited to participate in the survey, but unfortunately we can only ship the shirt to entrants from the United States and Canada.)

Thank you to all who participated. This survey is now closed.

Workplace Religious Freedom Bill Finds Revived Interest (Religion News Service)

EXCERPT:

May 5, 2010 – WASHINGTON (RNS) — More than a decade after it was first introduced, an on-again off-again bill to protect employees’ religious expression in the workplace is attracting renewed attention that could lead to action on Capitol Hill in coming weeks.
. . .

“The bill will be introduced to Congress soon in a fashion that will eliminate the concerns some folks had since its inception,” said Richard Foltin, the director of national and legislative affairs for the American Jewish Committee.

Touted in certain circles as the “WRFA god,” Foltin co-chairs an unusually broad coalition of almost 40 religious groups, from Sikhs to Seventh-Day Adventists to Southern Baptists, who support the bill’s religious freedom expansions.

If passed, the now narrowly tailored legislation would require employers to make reasonable accommodation in the three areas where the vast majority of religious accommodation claims fall: religious clothing, grooming, and scheduling of religious holidays.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11631159/

ReligiousLiberty.TV will continue to track developments of this legislation which is similar to the Workplace Religious Freedom Act passed in Oregon last year.

Related stories:

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signs the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Breaking News:  We have received word that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786). SB 786 requires employers to make credible attempts to accommodate religious holy day observance and religious dress. Prior to SB 786, employers in Oregon could make only the bare minimum …

Talking Points SB 786 – Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

GENERAL Talking Points   Federal Religious Accommodation Law   Defining terms: “Undue hardship.” Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972, requires employers to “reasonably” accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless, by so doing, the employer would incur an “undue hardship on the conduct of the …

Workplace Discrimination Claims On the Rise (BeliefNet – RNS)

The Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) is again being proposed in the United States Congress and a similar bill is being heard at the state legislature in Oregon.    This bill is important to religious people who are currently being forced to choose between their faith and their jobs.  Thanks …

Michael Newdow – Question to Justice Scalia: Does the Establishment Clause Permit the Disregard of Devout Catholics?

Dr. Michael Newdow, an attorney and physician famous for his litigation on church-state issues from an atheist perspective, and and previous article contributor to ReligiousLiberty.TV, has now published an important law review article for the Capital University Law Review that discusses the history of American religious freedom and tolerance and why the majority should carefully consider the rights of the minority.  Although one might disagree with his religious viewpoint, Newdow argues for people to be treated equally, regardless of what religious viewpoint they hold.

Here is an excerpt:

In reviewing the history of the religion clauses of the Constitution, onecan take two paths. One supports the basic ideal underlying ourconstitutional framework: equality, which is inclusive and is based onrespect for all religious opinions. The other leads to exclusion byadvocating for one or more non-universal religious views. The first reflects the Framers’ goals for guaranteeing liberty to all. The other guarantees liberty only to those who muster the political might to use the state’s machinery to advocate for their religious beliefs. The first exists to protect every individual. The other focuses on the fact that the white, male, property-owning Framers believed in God, and thus concludes thatthe magnificent document they created “permits the disregard” of religious minorities with alternative beliefs.

Why would anyone choose that latter path? Why go out of the way to“permit the disregard” of a minority when such a notion is nowhere to be found within the text of the Constitution, and a historical reading can as readily and more nobly support the equality principle? What sort of American patriot, citizen, or public servant would work towards such an end?”

The entire article, which is well worth reading, is available in PDF format for free download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document for free.)

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT:

In June 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia contended that ‘the Establishment Clause…permits the disregard of devout atheists.’ This statement is extraordinary inasmuch as it appears to reverse an inexorable (albeit, at times, wandering) trend toward true equality. Thus, where individuals had previously been treated as less than equal on the basis of race (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford), gender (e.g., Bradwell v. State) and national origin (e.g., Korematsu v. United States), those odious decisions are no longer good law. In his McCreary dissent, it seems that Justice Scalia sought motion in the opposite direction: toward overturning equality, in the one constitutional arena where the Supreme Court had not previously proclaimed such a manifest animus toward minorities: religion.
This article takes three approaches in considering the Justice’s argument. First, recognizing that Justice Scalia prides himself on being a ‘textualist,’ it considers the Establishment Clause’s text (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’). Next, because Justice Scalia, in McCreary, used specific historical events to support his thesis, those events are analyzed to see if they were selected in a fair manner, and if they really stand for the proposition he claims.

Finally, in Part III, Justice Scalia’s brand of analysis is applied to his own Catholicism. It is shown that the United States of America was born of a literal hatred for Catholics, which was pervasive and persistent. One may well conclude, therefore, that under his approach, the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of his own religion.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document.)

Next Page »