Excerpt:  ”The new science of interrogation is not, in fact, so new at all: “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation” and “waterboarding” all spring from the practices of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. The distance, in both technique and ideology, between the Inquisition’s interrogation regime and 21st-century America’s is uncomfortably short–and provides a chilling harbinger of what can happen when moral certainty gets yoked to the machinery of torture.”

Read the full article at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/torturer-8217-s-apprentice/8838/

In the months leading up to the election, on September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of his religion. In the weeks leading up to the speech, many Protestants had questioned whether Kennedy’s religious beliefs would preclude him from being objective in the White House. Kennedy’s response that he believed in separation of church and state was an eloquent response to the questions.   Fifty years later, they remain relevant. Here is a transcript of what he said:

Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

EXCERPT: The sound and smell of motorcycles roaring down a street in Kandahar must have overwhelmed 16-year-old Atifa in the moments before the attack. Before she really knew what was happening, one of the cyclists approached Atifa, her sister Shamsia, and several other girls and threw acid onto their faces. Atifa’s scarf melted into her hair, and 19-year-old Shamsia lost much of the skin on her face and the temporary use of her eyes, swollen shut from the inflammation.

This tragic story, as well as details of other acid attacks on Afghan school girls, was reported by CNN’s Atia Abawi in January of 2009. Stunned observers around the world learned that the religious extremism in Afghanistan was more violent than many had thought possible. Despite the forty-fourth article of the Afghan constitution specifically promoting the education of women, many Islamists still hold the hard-line views of the Taliban, which from 1996 to 2001 banned even basic female education for being un-Islamic.

Afghanistan has been called a failed state—a nation incapable of governing itself adequately. It is a land marked by systematic corruption, widespread human-rights abuses, and continual violence. Landlocked in the mountains of central Asia and highly dependent on the export of heroin, Afghanistan has been gripped by war, civil unrest, and terrorism for nearly a century. Instead of improving, things there seem only to be getting worse.

Since regaining its independence from the British in 1919, Afghanistan has ousted kings and generals. The country endured and then resisted Soviet occupation in the 1980s, and suffered through a lengthy civil war. The civil war facilitated the rise of the Taliban, who gained power after storming the presidential palace in the capital city of Kabul in September 1996.

Read the full article on the Liberty Magazine website

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Germany — Pope Benedict XVI Addresses Legislators; Chancellor Merkel Calls for Global Religious Tolerance

Article18: Poland — Citizens March to Protest Antisemitism; Death Metal Singer Not-Guilty After Trashing Bible on Stage

Article18: Kosovo — Muslim Headscarf Ban Upheld for Schools; Christians Required to be Buried in Islamic Graveyards

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

History professor and author Eric Foner answers the question: Getting to the American Revolution, what was the impact of the Revolution on religious freedom and the separation of church and state? Click on the video for links to more parts of the Norton interview.

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we profile a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. This week, Poland, where citizens in Bialystok protest against horrendous statements of antisemitism and a death metal singer is allowed to go free after ripping up a Bible during one of his concerts.

During the Second World War, what was arguably history’s most deadly and vicious assault on religious liberty  took place in the unassuming countryside of Nazi-occupied Europe. Almost half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were from Poland. That number is approximately three million. Ninety percent of Poland’s Jews were murdered in Nazi concentration camps, and today, in some towns, the only legacy of that tragedy is a plaque or a statue of remembrance. So last week, when local “vandals used green paint to spray a swastika and ‘SS’” on a monument dedicated to the hundreds of Jewish villagers who were burned alive in Jedwabne village during the Holocaust, protesters took to the streets demanding an end to the “wave of thoughtless hatred.”

Other hostile phrases such as “I don’t apologize for Jedwabne” and “They were flammable” were spray-painted onto the monument. The march was led by Sen. Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz and the mayor of the city of Bialystok as well as other concerned citizens.

The AP reports that those attending “The ‘March of Unity’ walked in silence from the city center to a monument of Ludwik Zamenhof, a Jewish doctor born in Bialystok, who invented the Esperanto language. It occurred without violence or arrests, despite a counter-demonstration by people chanting nationalist slogans.”

Sadly, this is not an outlying incident–”Other recent anti-Semitic or racist attacks in Poland have targeted a synagogue in the village of Orla, a Muslim center in Bialystok, and the Lithuanian minority in the Punsk region.”

A lack of respect for the religious beliefs of others seems to be a common trend in Poland as of late. But in some scenarios, acts of religious intolerance fall within the bounds of free speech, as in the case of Polish death metal singer Adam Darski.

“Adam Darski, who goes by the stage name Nergal and is the frontman for the death metal band Behemoth, was charged after he ripped up the Bible during a 2007 concert in Gdynia, in the country’s north.” Three weeks ago, “a Polish judge found a death metal singer innocent of offending religious feeling, ruling that his ripping up of a Bible during a show was a form of artistic expression consistent with the style of his band.”

Poland is a strongly Roman Catholic nation, with almost 90% of the country identifying themselves as such. So when Darski ripped pages out of the Bible, tossed them to concert-goers and instructed them to burn them, he was charged with offending religious feeling. But after the court explained that it had no “intention of limiting freedom of expression or the right to criticize religion,” Darski celebrated the verdict on his website writing, “I’m so glad to see that intelligence won over religious fanatics in my home country [but] there’s still so much work to be done to make things right.”

The line between free speech and criminal defamation of a religious group can sometimes be rather thin and some insensitive hardliners in Poland will probably accuse the law of double standards. But surely there is a noticeable difference between these two incidents.

Matthew Kramer is a close friend of mine from college, an amateur entertainment journalist and serious fan of heavy metal. Along with Brad Kenyon, who created the logos for this blog, and RLTV contributor David Ranzolin, Kramer and I ran our college’s biweekly student newspaper. He saw Darski’s death metal group, Behemoth, in concert a few years ago and while nothing outrageously provocative occurred–other than the usual screaming and ear-piercing music–he explained what separates even the most offensive art from criminal, racist acts.

“There is a difference,” Kramer said. “When the Bible is torn up on stage some people are offended, just like with the Koran.”

“But vandalizing a Holocaust memorial is worse because of the associated pain. There are still people alive who had family members killed during that time.”

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Kosovo — Muslim Headscarf Ban Upheld for Schools; Christians Required to be Buried in Islamic Graveyards

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

Gérard de Nerval (1808-1855)

loss. When poetry is brought up, one may be quick to think of Shakespearean love sonnets or Emily Dickinson’s poems on death. Yet, poets, including the two just mentioned, had much to say on religious matters. One lesser-known poet, coming after Shakespeare and before Dickinson, directly addressed religious liberty in his work.

After three mental breakdowns, including at least one in which he was hospitalized, French poet Gérard de Nerval published one of his lesser-known works: a mythological poem entitled “Delfica.” One year later, in 1855, he hung himself from his window grating, having been known as a man of ambiguity and mystery. His pet lobster, which he would take for walks with a blue ribbon, had added to this reputation. He was a son of a doctor who had served in Napoleon’s army, and his mother died while accompanying him when Nerval was a meager two years old. Nerval later had even attended some medical classes, supposedly in order to appease his father. Ridding himself of a painful history, he created a family ancestry of grandeur during his first mental breakdown: one which connected him not only to German royalty, but back even to the Roman emperor Nerva. His imaginative and constructive abilities reflect some of the better-known Romantic poets, such as William Blake, who created and worshiped his own deities. Nerval continued to construct, religiously this time, with “Delfica.” There is no need to brush up on Greek mythology if this name is not familiar: Nerval constructed it as he had constructed his own name. For those with the ability to comprehend French, Nerval’s poem gently while firmly consoles Daphne, letting her know that her gods have not abandoned her forever:

Delfica
La connais-tu, Dafné, cette ancienne romance,
Au pied du sycomore, ou sous les lauriers blancs,
Sous l’olivier, le myrte, ou les saules tremblants,
Cette chanson d’amour qui toujours recommence ?…

Reconnais-tu le Temple au péristyle immense,
Et les citrons amers où s’imprimaient tes dents,
Et la grotte, fatale aux hôtes imprudents,
Où du dragon vaincu dort l’antique semence ?…

Ils reviendront, ces Dieux que tu pleures toujours !
Le temps va ramener l’ordre des anciens jours ;
La terre a tressailli d’un souffle prophétique…

Cependant la sibylle au visage latin
Est endormie encor sous l’arc de Constantin
— Et rien n’a dérangé le sévère portique.

For those not fluent in French (including myself), a translation begins with a trot, which is as bad as it sounds. A trot is a word-by-word translation of a poem, and for this poem, sounds something like: “They will return, these Gods you cry forever!” making it sound as if the speaker denounces Daphne’s crying habits. The translator’s job is to then turn this back into Nerval’s poem, which means looking for the poem’s main ideas. Nerval cleverly uses symbols and imagery that have, like him, an ambiguous nature. They are symbols claimed by multiple religions. For instance, many lay claim to the olive tree as a symbol within their religion. Could the speaker be alluding to multiple religions at once? The speaker acknowledges that Daphne’s gods are presently absent, though. Yet, he claims they will return. It appears that the speaker argues that there is a time for all religions, as if they go through a cycle, which gives space for them all.

My translation emphasizes the idea of tolerating multiple religions while trying to maintain the same rhyme scheme:

Daphne, Nymph of Plants
after Gerard de Nerval’s “Delfica”

Do you know, Daphne, that old romantic song,
Beside the Fleur-de-lis, or the Lotus from afar,
Above by the wise owl, or by a crescent-enclosed star,
That passionate melody that continues to long?

Do you remember temples with their mighty columns,
The bitter lemon you bit with your teeth,
And the cavern that hides its visitors’ defeat,
Where the dead dragon’s seed waits to blossom?

These gods whom you cry over will come back,
Time will place the ancient days on track,
The earth shakes with the news of their return.

Yet, the prophet remains stoic
and continues to see Constantine as heroic
– and the pillars at the entrance remain firm.

Having first made it big with his translation of Goethe’s Faust, I would like to think that Nerval would encourage the translation of his own works, even if some aspects are lost in the move.

Even though Nerval’s suggestion that religions go in a cycle may seem bizarre, the questions that both his poem and lifestyle raise are fascinating. What if multiple religions do have a time and place to exist? Since the symbols he used are shared by many religions, could it mean that we have some things in common? His poem has the ability to encourage great conversations and his lifestyle reveals, among the importance of not pressuring a kid into medicine, that diversity adds great richness.

Lauren Peterson is a senior English major at Walla Walla University and is planning to attend medical school after her graduation in June. In addition to studying literature, Lauren enjoys making lattes for her friends, swimming laps, and spending time with her two adventurous kittens–Lewis and Clark. 

By Kevin R. James & Gregory W. Hamilton
Published in the June 2004 edition of Liberty Express Journal

EXCERPT:

The North have had no just idea of the strength of the accursed system of slavery. It is this, and this alone, which lies at the foundation of the war. The South have been more and more exacting. They consider it perfectly right to engage in human traffic, to deal in slaves and the souls of men. They are annoyed and become perfectly exasperated if they cannot claim all the territory they desire. They would tear down the boundaries and bring their slaves to any spot they please, and curse the soil with slave labor. The language of the South has been imperious, and the North have not taken suitable measures to silence it. . . .

Read the full article in the July 21, 2011 issue of the Adventist Review.

The “government enshrinement of the cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state,” the American Atheists say in a press statement. The group says it filed the lawsuit this week in state court in New York and posted a copy of the lawsuit on its website.

Read the full article

The proposal of the European Sunday Alliance presents several problems – instead of recognizing liberty of conscience in these issues, it would rely on the majority opinion that Sunday is the appropriate day of rest to shut down Sunday commerce and in the process would ignore and marginalize the rights of those who observe a different day.

I am a huge supporter of a weekly day of rest. I personally observe a weekly day of rest, and, like many others who write for Liberty, have advocated for the rights of those who have been denied rest day accommodation through the legislative and legal process. I have advocated for the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which would make it harder for employers to force employees to choose between their religious rest day beliefs and their jobs. Employees need to be treated with respect, and given appropriate breaks by their employers.

However, the proposal of the European Sunday Alliance presents several problems – instead of recognizing liberty of conscience in these issues, it would rely on the majority opinion that Sunday is the appropriate day of rest to shut down Sunday commerce and in the process would ignore and marginalize the rights of those who observe a different day.

The language of proposed Sunday rest laws is nothing new, in fact, it was one of the first pieces of legislation passed when the Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. In March of 321 A.D., Constantine declared, “Let all judges, the people of cities, and thoseemployed in all trades, remain quiet on the Holy Day of Sunday. (Code of Justinian, Book III, Title XII, III. THE JUSTINIAN CODE FROM THE CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS. Translated from the original Latin by Samuel P. Scott. Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, 1932).

Following the passage of the law, the Council of Nicea met in 325 A.D. and decided that Sunday was to be not only the day of rest, but the day of worship, and that Passover was to be observed on Sunday as well. Following that, those who insisted on keeping the seventh day as the day of rest and worship were severely persecuted for both civil and religious reasons.

In more contemporary history, the formation of the European Sunday Alliance last month parallels a similar development that took place in the aftermath of the American Civil War. In 1885, a petition was circulated for the U.S. Congress to use its powers to regulate interstate commerce to ban interstate trains, military parades, and mail service on Sundays except for work “of necessity, and mercy and humanity.” A bill was introduced in 1888 by Congressman Henry Blair, and it was soon endorsed by a wide range of religious organizations and labor unions including the Knights of Labor.

Most of the advocates at the time promoted the secular nature of the uniform day of rest, however for many religious advocates it represented a return to the kind of moral values that would reform a society that had so recently been torn apart. They believed that a return to Sunday Sabbath rest was a Biblical imperative, but publicly argued that it was for the good of society.

From a practical, economic standpoint, a uniform cessation of the wheels of commerce aside from certain health and safety exceptions, was required, otherwise it simply would not work. Since the majority believed that Sunday was already the day of rest, the Blair bill called for Sunday observance. Since the majority had thus defined the moral imperative, those who rested on a different day would simply have to adapt. In fact, those who worshipped on the seventh day of the week because of their religious beliefs could be deemed as acting illegally if they did not also rest on Sunday.

While the national bill did not pass, local variations passed across the nation, and some who worked on Sundays were arrested and even jailed.

In its Founding Statement, the European Sunday Alliance argues that, in the interest of synchronicity, Sunday is the appropriate day of rest for all of Europe, and makes no allowance or acknowledgment of what should be done for those whose faith requires them to rest on a day outside of Sunday. In fact, it is not hard to see how those who rest on a different day might be an annoyance or hindrance to Sunday rest, and even in the debate may be portrayed as roadblocks, troublemakers, or even anti-religious. Businesses who open on Sunday could be fined, and those who conduct their own entrepreneurial endeavors on Sunday could also find themselves operating against the law.

Many people are predicting that the European Sunday Alliance does not have the political power or support to actually implement a Sunday closing law across Europe. This could be true, but today, as in ages past, those who value liberty of conscience cannot afford to sit idly by hoping that it goes away. They need to make their voices heard, both legally and theologically. Legal arguments may become moot as laws can change, so those who wish to defend their beliefs must also be able to provide a theological basis to demonstrate the reason for their religious commitment and be able to demonstrate that it is, for them, a moral imperative, not simply a preference.

While one cannot predict the inevitability persecution resulting from what appears on its face to be a well-intentioned, if misguided proposal to relieve economic and political turmoil through rest, European history shows that stranger things have happened. Now, before it passes, is the time to speak up for those minorities who could be adversely affected if this proposal becomes law across Europe. It is a serious proposal and those who treat it as a mere curiosity may ultimately wish that they would have spoken up earlier.

###

This piece also appears with others addressing this issue at the Liberty Magazine Roundtable  at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1760.

EXCERPT: A bill passed yesterday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay. Opponents deride the measure as the “don’t say gay bill.’’ They say it is unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.

The delivery of mail on Sundays in the United States has a fascinating history, and most people do not know that until 1912, the Postal Service routinely delivered mail on Sundays. It was only under pressure from religious and labor organizations that the USPS gradually transitioned to the now-familiar Monday through Saturday schedule.

The Postal Service is as old as the nation itself, beginning with the kite-flying, bifocal inventing, and noted Renaissance man Benjamin Franklin who organized the USPS at the direction of the Second Continental Congress on July 26, 1775. The founders then gave Congress the power to establish and maintain the postal service as one of the enumerated powers in Article One of the Constitution. The mail was the sole communication lifeline of the newly formed nation, and the Postmaster a cabinet position and the final position in the presidential line of succession until the USPS was reorganized in 1971.

Between its inception in 1775 and 1912, postal employees delivered mail seven (7) days a week. In the early 1800s, religious leaders became concerned that employees were forced to work on the “Christian Sabbath,” or Sunday, and began to petition Congress to use its Article I powers to disallow Sunday delivery. This concern reached a fevered pitch in 1810 when Congress required post offices to open at least one hour on Sunday.^[1] Outraged that Congress had thus “enforced Sunday desecration,” religious leaders began to clamor for legislation that would outlaw Sunday operations.

This stemmed, in part, from the fact that prior to the passage of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which was one of the post-Civil War Amendments which applied the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the states, state and local governments were able to regulate Sunday closings of businesses and even regulate what private activities a person could participate in on Sundays. The post office, however, was Federal territory and people could go there and conduct business, or socialize and the local religious leaders had no jurisdiction to interfere.

In response to the petitions, in January 1811, Postmaster Gideon Granger issued a report to Congress describing his approach to the law requiring at least one hour of postal operations and expressing his concern that it might compel his employees to violate Sunday sacredness.  Writing in the third person, he stated, “to guard against any annoyance to the good citizens of the United States, he carefully instructed and directed the agents of this office to pass quietly, without announcing their arrival or departure by the sounding of horns or trumpets, or any other act calculated to call off the attention of the citizens from their devotions . . . .” After describing additional methods whereby he intended to mitigate Sunday desecration, the Postmaster concluded on a religious note, “that compelling the Postmasters to attend to the duties of the office on the Sabbath, is, on them, a hardship, as well as in itself tending to bring into disuse and disrepute the institutions of that holy day.”^[2]

“[C]ompelling the Postmasters to attend to the duties of the office on the Sabbath, is, on them, a hardship, as well as in itself tending to bring into disuse and disrepute the institutions of that holy day.” Postmaster Gideon Granger

In 1815, the United States House in Committee of the Whole held hearings on the petition of citizens from five states to prohibit Sunday transportation and opening of mail. After reviewing the petitions, the committee responded that communication was necessary, particularly since the nation was at war, and resolved that, “at this time it is inexpedient to interfere and pass any laws” prohibiting mail transportation and opening on Sundays.^[3]

The debate continued and in 1830, 75-year-old John Leland, a prominent Baptist minister who had championed liberty of conscience at the founding of the nation, addressed the issue. After describing America’s religious diversity, ranging from Islam to Judaism, paganism to Christianity, he stated that he believed that in deciding to close on Sunday, Congress would be making a theological decision in deciding which day was holy. After all, he reasoned, Congress should also recognize that Saturday was holy to Jews and “Sevendarian Christians.” Leland concluded:

“The powers given to Congress are specific-guarded by a ‘hitherto shalt thou come and no further.’ Among all the enumerated powers given to Congress, is there one that authorizes them to declare which day of the week, month, or year, is more holy than the rest-too holy to travel upon? If there is none, Congress must overleap their bounds, by an unpardonable construction, to establish the prohibition prayed for. Let the petitioners ask themselves the question. If Congress should assume an ecclesiasticopolitical power, and stop the mail on the seventh day, and let it be transported on the first, would that satisfy them? If not, are they doing as they would be done by?”^[4]

A group of citizens from Salem, New Jersey, including some Saturday-Sabbath keepers also wrote to Congress in 1830, concerned that the proposed Sunday closing would favor some religions over others, and called for the continued separation of church and state. “We cannot be too thankful,” they wrote, “that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to every one the rights of conscience and religion; . . . the proposed [Sunday closing] measure would operate as a violation of these rights . . . would pave the way to a union of church and state, against which our horrors are excited by the awful admonitions of history; which would be the death blow to our civil and religious liberties . . . and end in the worst of all tyranny ‘an ecclesiastical hierarchy.’”^[5]

Near the turn of the century, religious leaders once again sensed the need for greater observance of Sunday sacredness, and pushed for legislation that would prohibit various types of work on Sunday. On August 24, 1912, President William Taft signed H.R. 21279 (Mann) into law, closing all post offices on Sundays an introducing a six-day work week for postal clerks and letter carriers. The bill provided “that hereafter post offices . . . shall not be opened on Sundays for the purpose of delivering mail to the public.”^[6]

The bill was put into effect on September 1 of that year, and although it was hailed as a victory for workers’ rights by the American Federation of Labor, Sunday sacredness advocates viewed it as a spiritual victory. Among the many religious groups who claimed victory, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, in its quadrennial report noted that “it is gratifying to know that through the co-operation of the associations of letter and postal clerks, under the leadership of the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, a bill passed the last Congress, which closed to the public all the first and second class post-offices in the United States on Sunday.”^[7]

However, the Postmaster cited scheduling difficulties, particularly the requirement that those employees fulfilling necessary work on Sunday be granted compensatory time in the next six days, and said that the new law “has greatly increased the difficulties of efficient post-office service.”^[8] This would seem to indicate that religion, not efficiency, was the primary reason for closing on Sundays.

Today, all United States Post Offices are closed for Sunday delivery except for two: Angwin, California and Collegedale, Tennessee where a significant percentage of people observe the Sabbath on Saturday and where private post offices, owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church which operate universities in these towns, have contracts that guarantee no Saturday deliveries.

[1] “11th Congress, 2nd Sesssion, An Act Regulating the Post-Office Establishment, Enacted April 30, 1810.” American State Papers Bearing on Sunday Legislation, Revised and Enlarged Edition, compiled and annotated by William Addison Blakeley, Revised Edition edited by Willard Allen Colcord, The Religious Liberty Association, Washington, D.C. 1911, 176.

[2] Harmon Kingsbury, The Sabbath: A Brief History of Laws, Petitions, Remonstrances and Reports with Facts and Arguments Relating to the Christian Sabbath, S.W. Benedict, Printer, New York, 1840, 26.

[3] Blakeley, 393.

[4] The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times, New York,  1969, 564-66.

[5] Blakeley, 298.

[6] American State Papers and Related State Papers on Freedom in Religion, compiled and annotated by William Adison Blakeley, Published for the Religious Liberty Association by the Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1949, 273.

[7] Christian Unity at Work,  The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America in Quadrennial Session at Chicago, Illinois, 1912, Published by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ, edited by Charles S. Macfarland, 1913, 242.

[8] Post Office Department Annual Reports for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1914: Report of the Postmaster General, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1914, 143

photo credit: Ksayer1

###

Michael Peabody is the editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV.

Some time ago I picked up a book at a Christian book store entitled The Rights of the People, a book on the subject of religious liberty written in the late nineteenth century and reprinted in 1998. As I have been making my way through it I have been impressed by the depth of thought of it’s author, Alonzo T. Jones.

The most recent chapter I have read is entitled “Religious Right Invaded” in which Jones explains how despite the tireless efforts of the founders of this country to separate religion from government (which he maps out in the previous chapter) that in such areas the nation has gone backwards. He went so far to state that there has been “a counter-revolution”. He stated that this counter-revolution was accomplished and consummated in 1892 by the U.S. Supreme Court in  Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).

As is often the case (no pun intended), this decision came into being as a result of a challenge to an existing law. In 1887 Congress passed a law that forbade any alien to come to the U.S. under contract to perform any kind of labor. The reason for this law was that many corporations were going to Europe and finding people to come here and work. The company would pay their way, and because of this they required the laborers to work for next to nothing. This was depreciating the amount Americans could get paid for their labor, so Congress passed a law stating:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia.”

A problem arose when Trinity Church Corporation employed a preacher in England to come to the States and preach for them. This act was seen as a violation of the aforementioned law and the U.S District Attorney prosecuted the church. The U.S. Circuit Court decided that the church was guilty. Naturally, there was an appeal taken to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision on the grounds that the term “laborer” or “laborer or service” was intended to refer to manual labor, not a professional service. All the Supreme Court had to do was reverse the decision on those grounds, but they went above and beyond what was necessary, and that is where all the troubles began.

The Supreme Court stated, “But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true.” Having made such a statement they then had to back it up, and by so doing started down a very slippery slope. For not only were the people of this nation “religious”, but they were also “Christian”. Jones stated in a somewhat satirical tone that the people therefore are now all Christians regardless of whether they were Jews or non-believers because the highest court in the land declared them so. He then states that the very absurdity of the suggestion only demonstrates that the court should have nothing to do with such manners. He continues by stating that people are not made religious by law, judicial decision, nor historical precedent, which brings us to the historical “support” the Supreme Court gave to show that the people of the U.S. are indeed a religious people.

Jones stated that the historical reasons given are at best suspect and at worst complete misinterpretations of the original statements. The first historical reasons given were from European nations (i.e. Spain and England). Jones points out that the Spanish rulers (Ferdinand & Isabella) who commissioned Columbus were in fact the same rulers who established the Spanish Inquisition. To say that the language of these rulers has the same meaning as the U.S. Constitution takes quite a bit of stretching of the imagination. The statements regarding the British monarchy would have quite a bit more weight if in fact the U.S. was still under British rule, but it most definitely is not subject to British sovereignty.

There are many other historical reasons given, and Jones takes time to refute them all, but this is beyond the scope of this post. I will however touch on the reason for which Jones saves his strongest language, the ruling declares that the United States Constitution reaffirms the thought that this nation is a religious nation. To this Jones states, “To say it is absurd is not enough, it is simply preposterous.” He goes on to write that there is another consideration that magnifies that one, namely the fact that the court leaves out Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington from the place where they rightly belong, and drags “Ferdinand, Isabella and Elizabeth into the place where they do not and cannot by any shadow of right belong[.]”

There is much more but Jones sums the entire ruling in this way.

“The United States . . . was turned from the ‘new order of things’ to which it was committed by our revolutionary fathers, and to which it stands pledged by the great seal of the government itself, and was thrown into the evil tide of the old order of things. And thus this enlightened nation, the example and glory of the world, was caused to assume the place and the prerogatives of the governments of the Middle Ages in embodying in law the dogmas and definitions of the theologians, and executing the arbitrary and despotic will of the church.”

So while it is nice to wistfully look back at times gone by and wish that things were like they used to be, it is important to realize that even in the good old days the situation was not as rosy as we thought it was.

###

Brent Buttler, who earned his Masters of Divinity degree at Andrews University, originally published this essay on his blog, Educational Litter. Buttler describes himself as “a mid-western transplant in a western state who is getting used to winters without snow, and the fact that practically everything is east of where I live.”

Understanding three models of church-state relations in Europe is a key first step in addressing issues of religious freedom here.

As recently as a decade ago, religion in the West was considered to be facing extinction. Now more than ever, matters of religious freedom and human rights in secular states are at odds with a refocus on religion — this resurgence being fueled by the fact that extensive technical reasoning has been unable to explain the meaning of life.

Earlier this month, the Adventist Church sponsored a symposium in the city of Bellinzona, Ticino, bringing together elected officials, experts on church law and church-state relations, theologians and students of different Christian denominations to better understand religious liberty concerns and discuss possible solutions.

At the heart of the matter is understanding religious liberty in relation to the different models of secularism existing in Europe and Switzerland.

While Switzerland has 26 different models of church-state relations (as many as there are Cantons in Switzerland), in Europe, three models exist:

First: Countries with a large Catholic or Orthodox majority, where traditional religions are considered by the State to be capable of providing the necessary social cohesion for the country and thus recognized and favored.

This trend in Europe is that of an alliance between strongly Catholic and strongly Orthodox countries which then manifests itself in particular situations, such as Italy’s recent defense of the crucifix, with the cooperation of these countries.

Second: Countries where the majority religion is weak. In such countries, secularism, with its values of equality, liberty and fraternity, becomes the organizing principle and the State takes on the task of promoting this secularism. This usually manifests itself as imposing negatives — “no” to religious symbols in schools, for example. This is the case in France.

Three: A multicultural policy. This has developed in England. There, human rights are at the forefront in relation to religions, which must recognize and submit to human rights. Unfortunately, in some cases human rights have risked overriding the rights of the single religions.

Understand, these are not fixed models. Indeed, today’s situation in Europe — especially here in Switzerland — is one of constant oscillation between the three models, determined by the sense of decline that is being perceived in Western culture.

The search therefore progresses in the direction of merging the various models, and to search for common ground where the rights of the religions, religious liberty, human rights and rights of the majority and minorities are kept in balance.

Participants at the February 4 symposium said possible solutions should be seen in terms of:

• A greater disposition to accept individuals and groups who desire to manifest their religion or belief publicly.

• Helping to increase the acceptance of plurality concerning personal beliefs.

• Safeguard the internal autonomy of religion and belief communities, while respecting human rights to their full extent.

Knowing these issues is a starting point. Now is up to us to continue pursuing this goal of balancing religious liberty in multicultural societies.

–Corrado Cozzi is the Communication director for the Adventist Church’s Euro-Africa Division, based in Berne, Switzerland

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.

The case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, which makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional interpretation. Since that time, all constitutional scholars understand, whether they admit it or not, that the Constitution has not been just the words on the pages of the document. The Constitution has also been the interpretation of that document as decided by the Supreme Court through its jurisprudence (its decisions). Turning back to the issue of the religion clauses of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state, the wall of separation has been ensconced in our constitutional understanding by two cases. First, Reynolds v. US (1878) established that the wall of separation was apropos as it relates to free exercise. Second, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) established the wall of separation of church and state as a guiding principle as it relates to the establishment clause. Since these decisions, the metaphor of the wall of separation of church and state has been the meta-narrative, the guiding principle that helps the Court determine what the Founders meant when they said, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Establishment Clause), nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (Free Exercise Clause) Christine O’Donnell can certainly be ridiculed for not grasping this concept, or at least for not clearly stating that she did understand this and was trying to point out that separation is not a valid constitutional guide. Of course, if she meant the latter, that would mean she would be honor bound to posit some better, more efficient rubric, or one that would help us to better understand the Founders’ intent.

Conservative Christians often move from this argument to the question of religious symbols on public property. However, it flies in the face of well-established Supreme Court jurisprudence to argue that symbols of the Christian religion, like crosses, Ten Commandment monuments, and prayers before school events are not establishments of religion. Why? Because the Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, has decided that these nods to the Christian religion are audible and visual signs that our country supports Christianity more than it supports other religions. That’s establishment. It has been for more than 60 years and counting. Moreover, in order to have the Christian monuments that do exist, churches and cities and other religious groups have had to argue that these symbols are not Christian, but are part of a greater amorphous American heritage. This argument robs the cross, or the Ten Commandments of their deep spiritual meaning to every Christian. Shouldn’t that offend believers? That in our rush to have a structure erected, we rob the structure of the very meaning that makes the structure important in the first place?

It is also important for Christians to not overstate the case as it relates to their rights in America. It makes every Christian look disingenuous. For example, the Court has not removed prayer from school. What has been removed from school is official-led prayer or state-sanctioned prayer. If a parent wants their child to pray, they can do so whenever they choose. Also, there has never been a case, so far as my research has shown, where some monument to someone else’s faith was created with gov’t funds and not challenged as an establishment of religion. Some of us make it sound like Christianity is undergoing some sort of Dark Ages level persecution here. Such a thing is totally untrue. Christianity can’t be under that much persecution can it? Not when political candidates go speak in Christian churches, and churches can get gov’t funds through faith-based initiatives, and Christian leaders have influence with politicians, and control lobbying groups, and help to push through moral legislation. Christianity is still at the top of the heap as it regards religion in this country. Every Christian would do well to remember that.

Some ask (in a derogatory fashion I presume) what kind of country we’re living in, when they cannot do things like have teachers lead prayer in schools or put up Ten Commandment structures in a courthouse. I would respond by saying that we live in a country that respects freedom so much that they created a system in which people are free to believe as they wish about religion without feeling like their gov’t does not support their right to believe in that fashion. I would say that we live in a country so great, that our Founders, almost 250 years ago, had enough foresight to realize that they could not create hard and fast rules in an area like religion, so they created an open, malleable standard that would be able to expand and contract as the future society would demand. It seems to me that we live in a country whose theories and principles of freedom are great. Unfortunately, those who most strenuously argue for the Founders’ intent seem to be the ones most hell-bent on destroying that intent, turning something that is great in theory into something that is terrible in practice.

Greg Hamilton, President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association and advisory panel member of ReligiousLiberty.TV presents his book list for 2010-2011. 

1) Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier

2) Decision Points by George W. Bush

3) The Second Disestablishment: Church and State in Nineteenth-Century America by Steve Green

4) The Ideological Origins of American Federalism by Alison LaCroix

5) Washington: A Life by Ron Chernow

6) Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire by Paul Halliday

7) The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen

8 ) Revolutionaries: A New History of the Invention of America by Jack Rakove

9) God of Liberty: A Religious History of the American Revolution by Thomas Kidd

10) The Decline and Fall of the American Republic by Bruce Ackerman

11) Woodrow Wilson: A Biography by John Milton Cooper, Jr.

12) Napoleon by Paul Johnson

13) Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War by Andrew Bacevich

14) The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 by Sean Wilentz

15) God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Rodney Stark

16) John Hancock: Merchant King and American Patriot by Harlow Giles Unger

17) The Enemy at the Gate: Habsburgs, Ottomans and the Battle for Europe by Andrew Wheatcroft

18) Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation by Harlow Giles Unger

19) Samuel Adams: A Life by Ira Stoll

20) Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty by Steven Waldman

21) Tear Down This Wall: A City, A President, and the Speech that Ended the Cold War by Romesh Ratnesar

22) The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations by Lee Smith

By Rajmund (Ray) Dabrowski -

Authentic religion calls for a respect, sensitivity and acceptance of another’s beliefs and practices. Do unto others … the saying goes.

It really did not matter which one of the muezzins woke me up. The melodic reciting of a call to prayer from one of the minarets at 4:45 in the morning on the next to last day of the Holy Month of Ramadan could have come from any of the mosques surrounding the Holiday Inn hotel in the Western part of Amman, Jordan.

Rajmund Dabrowski directed communications for the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists from 1994-2010.  For a number of years he has held a position as a vice president of the International Religious Liberty Association. In the early 1990s Dabrowski edited the English edition of “Conscience & Liberty,” in St. Albans, England, a journal of the International Association for the Defense of Religious Freedom, and was a contributing writer/researched of “Freedom of Religion and Belief – A World Report,” [Edited by Kevin Boyle and Juliet Sheen; Ruthledge, 1997].  This article and accompanying photographs come from his personal blog, Pushing the Borders.