Ronald Reagan on Preserving the Sacred Fire of Human Liberty

Remarks of President Ronald Reagan on the 200th anniversary of Signing of the the U.S. Constitution on September 18, 1987.

As we stand here today before Independence Hall, we can easily imagine that day, Sept. 17, 1787, when the delegates rose from their chairs and arranged themselves according to the geography of their states, beginning with New Hampshire and moving south to Georgia.

They had labored for four months through the terrible heat of that Philadelphia summer, but they knew as they moved forward to sign their names to that new document that in many ways their work had just begun. This new Constitution, this new plan of government, faced a skeptical, even hostile reception in much of the country.

To look back on that time, at the difficulties faced – and surmounted -can only give us perspective on the present. Each generation, every age, I imagine, is prone to think itself beset by unusual and particularly threatening difficulties, to look back on the past as a golden age, when issues were not so complex and politics not so divisive, when problems did not seem so intractable.

Sometimes we’re tempted to think of the birth of our country as one such golden age – a time characterized primarily by harmony and cooperation.

In fact, the Constitution and our government were born in crisis. The years leading up to our constitutional convention were some of the most difficult our nation ever endured. This young nation, threatened on every side by hostile powers, was on the verge of economic collapse. In some states, inflation raged out of control. Debt was crushing. In Massachusetts, ruinously high taxes provoked an uprising of poor farmers led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays.

Perilous State of Confederacy

Trade disputes between the states were bitter and sometimes violent, threatening not only the economy, but even the peace. No one thought him guilty of exaggeration when Edmund Randolph described the perilous state of the confederacy. ”Look at the public countenance,” he said, ”from New Hampshire to Georgia. Are we not on the eve of war, which is only prevented by the hopes from this convention?”

Yes, but these hopes were matched in many others by equally strong suspicions. Wasn’t this convention just designed to steal from the states their sovereignty, to usurp the freedoms so recently fought for? Patrick Henry, the famed orator of the revolution, thought so. He refused to attend the convention, saying, with his usual talent for understatement, that he ”smelt a rat.”

The Articles of Confederation, all could see, were not strong enough to hold this new nation together. But there was no general agreement on how a stronger Federal government should be constituted – or, indeed, whether one should be constituted at all. There were strong secessionist feelings in many parts of the country; in Boston, some were calling for a separate nation of New England. Others felt the 13 states should divide into three independent nations. And it came as a shock to George Washington, recently traveling in New England, to find that sentiment in favor of returning to a monarchy still ran strong in that region.

No, it wasn’t the absence of problems that won the day in 1787. It wasn’t the absence of division and difficulty. It was the presence of something higher – the vision of democratic government founded upon those self-evident truths that still resounded in Independence Hall. It was that ideal, proclaimed so proudly in this hall a decade earlier, that enabled them to rise above politics and self-interest, to transcend their differences and together create this document, this Constitution that would profoundly and forever alter, not just these United States, but the world.

When Revolution Truly Began

In a very real sense, it was then -in 1787 – that the revolution truly began. For it was with the writing of our Constitution, setting down the architecture of democratic government, that the noble sentiments and brave rhetoric of 1776 took on substance, that the hopes and dreams of the revolutionists could become a living, enduring reality.

All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Until that moment some might have said that was just a high-blown sentiment, the dreams of a few philosophers and their hot-headed followers. But could one really construct a government, run a country, with such idealistic notions?

But once those ideals took root in living, functioning institutions, once those notions became a nation, well, then, as I said, the revolution could really begin, not just in America, but around the world, a revolution to free man from tyranny of every sort and secure his freedom the only way possible in this world – through the checks and balances and institutions of limited, democratic government.

Checks and balances; limited government – the genius of our constitutional system is its recognition that no one branch of government alone could be relied on to preserve our freedoms. The great safeguard of our liberty is the totality of the constitutional system, with no one part getting the upper hand. That is why the judiciary must be independent. And that is why it also must exercise restraint.

If our Constitution has endured, through times perilous as well as prosperous, it has not been simply as a plan of government, no matter how ingenious or inspired that might be. This document that we honor today has always been something more to us, filled us with a deeper feeling than one of simple admiration – a feeling, one might say, more of reverence.

Covenant With Mankind

One scholar described our Constitution as a kind of covenant. It is a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind. As John Quincy Adams promises, ”Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers.” It is a human covenant, yes, and beyond that, a covenant with the Supreme Being to whom our founding fathers did constantly appeal for assistance.

It is an oath of allegiance to that in man that is truly universal, that core of being that exists before and beyond distinctions of class, race or national origin. It is a dedication of faith to the humanity we all share, that part of each man and woman that most closely touches on the divine.

And it was perhaps from that divine source that the men who came together in this hall 200 years ago drew the inspiration and strength to face the crisis of their great hopes and overcome their many divisions.

After all, both Madison and Washington were to refer to the outcome of the Constitutional Convention as a miracle; and miracles, of course, have only one origin.

”No people,” said George Washington in his inaugural address, ”can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency.”

No doubt he was thinking of the great and good fortune of this young land: the abundant and fertile continent given us, far from the warring powers of Europe, the successful struggle against the greatest power of that day, England, the happy outcome of the Constitutional Convention and the debate over ratification.

America’s Solemn Duty

But he knew, too, as he also said, that there is an ”indissoluble union” between duty and advantage, and that the guiding hand of providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause – the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty. That is America’s solemn duty.

During the summer of 1787, as the delegates clashed and debated, Washington left the heat of Philadelphia, and with his trout fishing companion, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, made a pilgrimage to Valley Forge. Ten years before, his Continental Army had been camped there through the winter. Food was low, medical supplies nonexistent, his soldiers had to go ”half in rags in the killing cold, their torn feet leaving bloodstains as they walked shoeless on the icy ground.”

Gouverneur Morris reported that the general was silent throughout the trip. He did not confide his emotions as he surveyed the scene of past hardship. One can imagine that his conversation was with someone else -that it took more than the form of prayer for this new nation, that such sacrifice be not in vain, that the hope and promise that survived such a terrible winter of suffering not be allowed to wither now that it was summer.

One imagines that he also did what we do today in this gathering and celebration, what will always be America’s foremost duty – to constantly renew that covenant with humanity, with a world yearning to breathe free; to complete the work begun 200 years ago, that grand, noble work that is America’s particular calling – the triumph of human freedom – the triumph of human freedom under God.

###

Giving An Account: William Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave Trade

By David C. Read -

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was the grandson of a British merchant who had made his fortune trading with the Baltic nations. William’s father died when William was nine, and his temporarily overwhelmed mother sent him to live with an aunt and uncle who were Methodists. At the age of 17, William was sent to study at Cambridge, and the deaths of his grandfather and uncle in the next couple of years left him independently wealthy while still a teenager.

In those days, wealthy gentlemen students pursued cards, drinking and theater more avidly than studies, and young Wilberforce was no exception. He excelled socially, however, and became friends with William Pitt, the younger, who was to become prime minister just a few years later (at age 24!) and who talked Wilberforce into a career in politics.  Wilberforce stood for parliament at age 20, while still at Cambridge, and obtained his seat, as was the custom, by spending a princely sum of money buying votes.  His political career did not impinge on his primary activities of cards, drinking and socializing in circles appropriate to a man of his standing.  The influential salon hostess Germaine de Staël called Wilberforce “the wittiest man in England,” and he must have had a fine singing voice, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, remarked that the Prince of Wales would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing.

William Wilberforce played by Ioan Gruffudd in "Amazing Grace" Bristol Film Productions (2007)

In 1785, while on a tour of the European continent, Wilberforce read, “The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul” by a leading non-conformist minister, Philip Doddridge.  He resolved to give his life to Christ.  He began to rise early in the morning to pray and study the Bible, and he began keeping a journal.  The upper classes of Wilberforce’s England considered religious fervor a faux pas, and stigmatized it.  Wilberforce wondered if he should even continue in public life, and sought advice from John Newton, a former slaver and the author of the hymn “Amazing Grace.”  Both Newton and William Pitt advised Wilberforce to remain in parliament and allow his religious convictions to inform his legislative work.

In the previous article, we saw how slavery gradually withered away in Christendom and was replaced by the feudal system.  Unfortunately, a few centuries later the nations of Christendom became involved with slavery in the “New World.”  It soon became apparent to the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Dutch colonizers of the Americas and “West Indies” that the best opportunity for gain came from growing sugar cane and other warm weather crops not grown in Europe.  It was believed that Africans would be best suited to the back-breaking labor necessary to operate the plantations, and more resistant to the tropical diseases that took a heavy toll on Europeans.  Slavery was well established in Africa; the Islamic ummah had been buying African slaves for several centuries.  Europeans found many localities, especially in West Africa, where they could purchase slaves from African slave-dealers.  A triangular trade route developed in which British ships took manufactured goods from Britain to Africa to be traded for slaves, then delivered the slaves from Africa to the West Indies for sale to plantation owners—the infamous “middle passage” of the triangular route—and finally delivered sugar, rum, molasses, or tobacco from the Americas and West Indies to Europe.  This terrible triangular traffic was to continue for centuries.

By the late 18th Century, the stark inhumanity of the trans-Atlantic slave traffic was becoming widely known.  In 1787, many of the drafters of the United States Constitution wanted to outlaw the traffic, but southern slave-holding interests negotiated a compromise which postponed any ban until 1808, at the earliest.  (Article 1, section 9)  On March 2, 1807, congress passed a bill that was signed into law the next day by President Thomas Jefferson (a southerner and slave owner) forbidding the importation of slaves into the United States, effective January 1, 1808, the first constitutionally permissible date.  The disdain for the slave traffic was so great, however, that by 1808 every state except South Carolina had already banned the importation of slaves.

The year 1787 marks the beginning of William Wilberforce’s campaign to outlaw the slave traffic in the British Empire.  He wrote in his journal, “God almighty has set before me  . . . the suppression of the slave trade.”  He met with Thomas Clarkson, a Christian abolitionist who had been studying and researching the slave trade for many years, and who was to provide the witnesses and other evidence supporting Wilberforce’s legislative efforts.  Wilberforce met with the newly formed “Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” a group of Quakers and like-minded abolitionist Anglicans.  He met with Prime Minister William Pitt and future Prime Minister William Grenville, and both encouraged him to introduce a bill banning the slave trade.  In 1788, however, Wilberforce became seriously ill and had to leave London to convalesce at Bath.  During his absence, Pitt ordered the privy council to investigate the slave trade and report to parliament.  In 1789, a recovered Wilberforce gave his first major speech against the slave trade, and introduced his first anti-slave trade bill.  Opponents sidelined the bill with two years of absurdly drawn out hearings, after which the bill was defeated, 163 to 88.

Wilberforce would annually re-introduce the anti-slave trade bill every year through 1799.  In 1793, his measure failed by only 8 votes, but the radical phase of the French Revolution and war between Britain and France put the cause on the back burner.  In 1796, the measure failed by only 4 votes; at least six abolitionist members chose that day to see a new Italian comic opera playing in London.  Wilberforce wrote in his diary: “Enough at the Opera to have carried it.  I am permanently hurt about the Slave Trade.”

William’s lack of success in ending the slave trade was ameliorated by happiness in his personal life.  In 1797, Wilberforce was introduced to Barbara Ann Spooner as a possible wife.  Wilberforce was instantly infatuated, and proposed marriage only 8 days later.  The couple were married six weeks later, and had six children over the next 10 years.

In 1804, Wilberforce introduced his bill for the first time since 1799; this time it passed the House of Commons but died in the House of Lords, as Wilberforce mistakenly trusted men not as committed to the cause as he was.  Thanks to constant, unflagging efforts of Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson and many other Christian activists, the slave trade was a prominent issue in the Parliamentary election of 1806, which returned a good number of abolitionists to the House of Commons.  In 1807, Lord Grenville introduced the anti-slave trade bill, it again passed the House of Commons, and Grenville guided it through the House of Lords, which approved it and returned it to  Commons for final passage.  On February 23, 1807, after many members of parliament rose to speak and salute Wilberforce’s tireless efforts, the bill to ban the slave trade was overwhelmingly passed, 283 to 16. Wilberforce’s face streamed with tears as the final tally was taken.

After at last winning the two-decades-long fight to ban the slave traffic, Wilberforce did not immediately call for abolition of slavery, feeling that the slaves were ill-prepared to fend for themselves.  In 1816, however, Wilberforce began to denounce slavery itself.  In 1823, Wilberforce at last lent his considerable prestige to the cause of total abolition of slavery within the British Empire.  He published a tract entitled, “Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies.”  In June 1824, Wilberforce gave his last speech in Parliament, calling for the abolition of slavery.  Declining health forced his resignation from Parliament in 1825, although he continue to be active in the anti-slavery movement.  The bill to abolish slavery in the empire passed one month after Wilberforce’s death on July 29, 1833; he died knowing it would pass.  He was buried in Westminster Abbey, near his good friend William Pitt.

Christianity was the animating force behind the movement to abolish the slave trade, and also behind the incomparable career of William Wilberforce.  “A man who acts from the principles I profess,” he said, “reflects that he is to give an account of his political conduct at the judgment seat of Christ.”

David C. Reed is a graduate of Southwestern Adventist University and the University of Texas School of Law. He has practiced law in Texas and California, but is now the director of an independent apologetics ministry. This article originally appeared at the ADvindicate website where Read is a frequent contributor. It is reprinted by permission of the author.

Sikh Group Develops App to Report Airport Profiling (CNN)

EXCERPT: Airline travelers who feel they’ve been harassed at airport check-ins by screeners now have a speedier outlet on which to complain right at their fingertips.

The Sikh Coalition, a civil rights advocacy group, on Monday released a mobile application on iPhones and Android phones giving passengers who feel they’ve been racially or religiously profiled a way to speak out against screeners with the Transportation Security Administration.

The free mobile app, FlyRights, prompts disgruntled passengers with questions and allows them to quickly check the basis on which they feel they’ve been discriminated, then name the airport where the incident occurred, the airline and the flight number.

Read the full article

Tom McClintock – CISPA Cyber-security Bill – A Truly Orwellian Measure

Speech Made by Congressman Tom McClintock from the House Floor on April 27, 2012

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/

Timeline: Obama Administration Actions Affecting U.S. Religious Freedom | Christianity Today

Excerpt:

“The past year has marked a shift in religious liberty debates, one that previously centered on hiring rights but became focused on health care requirements. When President Obama first took office, faith-based groups were especially concerned that organizations that discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs would become ineligible for federal funding. In 2011, the President indicated that he would not rescind an executive order on hiring rights. Just a week later, though, Health and Human Services ruled that religious groups other than churches must provide their employees contraception, triggering lawsuits and petitions. But contraception is not the only religious freedom issue faith-based groups are eyeing. The following timeline shows a number of actions the government took in the past year, setting precedents and priorities on various issues, including sexual orientation, health care, and hiring decisions.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/timeline-obama-religious-freedom.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=eNews&utm_term=9465269&utm_content=122402270&utm_campaign=2012

Santorum’s Martyr Complex (SLATE)

Film Review: The Harm of “The Help”

By Jason Hines -

I find “The Help” to be the supposedly heartwarming story of a White woman (Skeeter) who comes of age off of the pain and suffering of Black people. She struggles for these unheard Black women in a town where a lot of people surprisingly love Black women, but do not have the courage to speak up for them. Skeeter then becomes the only one who has the bravery to attempt to do something for these poor Black women who are too scared and beaten down by life to do for themselves. They in return empower Skeeter to be the woman that she is supposed to be, and to go live the life in New York that she wanted, but was not good enough to achieve at the beginning of the movie.I did not find anything particularly redeeming about this movie. The premise itself bothers me. Actually viewing the movie did not change any of that for me. The most difficult part for me, was to separate my feelings about the era itself with the elements of the movie that are flagrantly not based in the reality of the era. Even if this film had been amazingly done, it would still have been an upsetting movie simply because of the story it attempts to tell. However, it is even more revolting because of its massive failure to correctly tell the story.

There are elements of the story that seem so ahistorical that I was unable to suspend my disbelief, and almost all of them were upsetting.While there is some basis of the racism of Hilly (the antagonist) her mean girl actions throughout the movie obscure the racism and segregation that underlie her actions (if it is even really racism that motivates her). I must admit that I was unsure by the end of the movie about whether Hilly was a racist or if she hated her own life, or if she was mad because she did not marry the man she really wanted. The most obviously problematic storyline was Minnie (Hilly’s first maid) and the feces pie. I do not understand how the writers of this movie expected me to believe that a Black maid could feed a White woman feces and the only repercussion would be that she would be beaten by her Black husband. I guess that makes for a good story, but there is very little possibility that Minnie would be able to do that type of thing and not die as a result.

A Harvard Law graduate, Jason Hines practiced commercial litigation in Philadelphia for five years and conducted seminars on religious liberty in his spare time. This gave him the opportunity to discuss issues of religious freedom with Adventists in churches all over the United States. In 2008, Jason decided to devote his life to work in religious liberty. To that end, he enrolled at the Seminary at Andrews University, where he is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Religion. He is also a PhD candidate in the Religion, Politics, and Society at the J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies at Baylor University. Jason blogs about religious liberty and other religious issues at thehinesight.blogspot.com and is also an associate editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV, an independent religious liberty website.

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

In Nigeria, escalating religious conflict impacts Adventist Church (ANN)

Adventist News Network-

Jan. 23, 2012 Abidjan, Ivory Coast

Gilbert Weeh/ANN staff

The Seventh-day Adventist Church in Nigeria is seeing a drop in church attendance and some church closures amid worsening religious conflict in the country.

An upsurge of attacks against Christian churches by the extremist group Boko Haram beginning late last year has led to ongoing sectarian violence between Muslim and Christian groups in northeast Nigeria.

Adding to the tumult, the country’s government recently eliminated energy subsidies, doubling the price of gasoline and inciting nationwide strikes and demonstrations. News reports indicate that Nigerians are living in fear of continuing unrest.

Meanwhile, Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie called on religious leaders in her country to speak out against the violence, the Guardian reported last week.

“Christian leaders must continue to preach peace and togetherness so that Christians do not retaliate,” Adichie told the Guardian. “Muslim leaders must strongly and repeatedly condemn the violence against Christians and make it clear that Boko Haram does not represent Nigerian Islam,” she said.

The Adventist Church in the country has devoted recent days to fasting and prayer for the ongoing situation. Church administration in the country is encouraging membership to work in small groups and avoid large public religious gatherings. Open air evangelism efforts have been put on hold due to a curfew and the fragile security situation, church officials said.

According to a report by Northeast Nigeria Conference President Bindas Stephen Haruna, the Adventist Church there has not suffered property damage or loss of life. However, some individual members have had their property looted or burned.

“The situation in Northern Nigeria shows how a lack of religious freedom can affect the life of churches, and why we must promote and strongly defend this essential freedom before it is too late,” said John Graz, director for the Adventist world church’s Public Affairs and Religious Liberty.

Church attendance in northeast Nigeria has dropped drastically, leading to church closures in some regions where most members are traveling business people who have returned to their homes. In other churches, pastors have left their congregations for fear of being killed.

The situation has produced a wave of small group evangelism, church leaders said. As Nigerian Adventists funnel their efforts to spread the Adventist hope on a smaller scale, church officials in the country are soliciting the prayers and support of the world church family.

Next Page »