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.
Tom McClintock – CISPA Cyber-security Bill – A Truly Orwellian Measure
Speech Made by Congressman Tom McClintock from the House Floor on April 27, 2012
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.”
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.
But there is a macro-level problem with this story as a whole which I alluded to earlier. The movie explicitly establishes Skeeter as the protagonist, the person who we are supposed to be rooting for. However, she does things that I find to be unconscionable. First she gets a maid (Abilene) to write her column for her. First, she just asks for assistance, but we see later in the film that while Skeeter is working on the book, Abilene is writing her column. Am I supposed to be ok with that? Secondly, Skeeter is the only person who gets anything good out of her relationship with these maids. Skeeter gets what she wanted at the beginning of the film – a job with a New York publishing firm. Abilene ends up fired with no prospects on how she would support herself. But she feels good about herself so I guess it’s alright. This is dovetailed with the very odd resolution of Minnie’s story, where she finds the strength to leave her abusive husband because her white employer cooked a meal for her. I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense to me.
In the end, I find this movie to be a whitewash of a very compelling story in a difficult time in American history. Racism and segregation are not portrayed as the evil, insidious institutions that they are, but are depicted instead as the result of catty White women attempting to maintain their place within their own social hierarchy. Furthermore, Toure, in his belated review of “The Help,” discussed the idea of the magical Negro, so I won’t get into too much of it here. But I will say that I highly doubt that a White toddler needed her Black maid to remind her, “You is kind, you is smart, you is important.” It would’ve made better sense if the child said it to the maid.
And it is the whitewashing of history that bothers me the most and has the potential to have lasting impact. In the HBO comedy documentary “Assume the Position,” Robert Wuhl makes the point that history is pop culture. Pop culture is the reason why so many children were taught that Columbus sailed west to prove the world was round. Pop culture is the reason why Paul Revere, who rode 19 miles, is more famous than Israel Bissel, who rode 345 miles to warn the colonists of the British attack. Pop culture is the reason why the play and movie “Inherit the Wind” have had a greater effect on how we view creation and evolution than the actual Scopes Monkey Trial that took place in 1925. “The Help” bothers me because it has the potential to shape the way that a generation, unconnected from Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement, views this dark time in American history. Instead of seeing the pain, heartache, and hardship that these women experienced, they will instead see segregation as a mild irritant, propagated mostly by White women, that bothered the Whites in the South as much as it bothered the oppressed (if not more so). They will think that these situations could be solved only through the well-meaning actions of White people who were not only sympathetic, but catalysts for the cause. Lost will be the true history of the suffering and oppression that Black people experienced.
If you doubt me, come to the South, where they have gone back to calling the indigenous people of this land American Indians so that White people can be known as “Native Americans.” Or where they are fighting to change history textbooks to deemphasize the brutality of slave-owners and the Jim Crow South. This whitewashing of history is already happening, and “The Help” is not helping.
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.Ruling on Ministers: What the Supreme Court said & didn’t say | Oregon Faith Report
Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, held that the “ministerial exception” bars a school teacher from bringing employment discrimination claims against her religious employer. The Court’s ruling clearly grants religious institutions the freedom to employ (and terminate) employees who act as ministers of their faith. Yet the Court’s decision does not clearly delineate how a religious organization (or their employees) determines who is and who is not a “minister.”
10th Circuit Rules Oklahoma Amendment Barring Islamic Law was Unnecessary and Discriminatory
OKLAHOMA –The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s ruling that blocked the implementation of the “Save Our State” amendment. The amendment, approved by 70 percent of Oklahoma voters in 2010, barred “Islamic law” in the state, even though there was no movement to impose sharia law in Oklahoma.
Judge Scott M. Matheson wrote on behalf of the unanimous court, “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses has resulted in concrete problems in Okalahoma.” (Awad v. Ziriax).
Larson test a Gateway to Addressing Laws that Discriminate Between Religions
The 10th Circuit also applied the Larson test as a gateway to the Lemon test. While the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) applied to “laws affording uniform benefit to all religions, and not to provisions…that discriminate among religions,” in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 255 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that if a law discriminated between religions, it could survive only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest asserted.”
In the case of California Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 2008), the 10th Circuit had described Larson, “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion …. The State may not adopt programs or practices…which aid or oppose any religion….. This prohibition is absolute.” Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.
Proponents of the Oklahoma amendment had argued that Larson was no longer good law because it is used infrequently, but the 10th Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court had never overturned it, and stated that this rarity “likely reflects that legislatures seldom pass laws that make ‘explicit and deliberate distinctions between different religious organizations’ as contemplated in Larson.”
In fact, the Supreme Court had referenced the rarity of this type of case in Church of the Lukimi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. City of Hileah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)(“The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions.”)
The Larson case facts were mild compared to the facts of Oklahoma amendment case. In the Larson case, a Minnesota statute imposed certain registration and reporting requirements on religious organizations that solicited more than 50 percent of their funds from non-members. No specific religious group was identified. But the Oklahoma statute specifically targeted Islam, and was defined in these terms: “Sharia Law is Islamic Law. It is based on two principle sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed.” (SQ 755).
The Oklahoma amendment further instructed the courts to “uphold and adhere to … if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.” The law did not prohibit Oklahoma courts from upholding laws of any other religion. The Oklahoma amendment also included language that Oklahoma “courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”
Because of the lack of Sharia law in Oklahoma, the Court ruled that the harm that the amendment would remedy was “speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.” Further, the court said that there was no way to tell whether the amendment would solve any Sharia law problem since “one cannot try on a glove to see if it fits when the glove is missing.”
The Court further found that Muneer Awad, a Muslim who had filed the case, would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. The court applied on the principle that “[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Kikumara v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950. The 10th Circuit also noted that although states can legislate in certain areas (including ballot initiatives), “these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
The full decision is available here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf
CONCLUSION: Certainly, if Islamic law had been imposed, it would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. But without that even being at issue, the Amendment became an excuse to marginalize a religious group.
Adventist church leaders meet with Hungarian ambassador on looming deregistration of churches
Religious liberty leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church this week met the Hungarian ambassador to the United States in an effort to help officials from that country better understand the potential effects of a looming deregistration of churches.
The Law of Churches, set for implementation on January 1, would deregister all but 14 religious denominations in Hungary, including the Adventist Church. It could also potentially affect the church’s theological seminary.
Hungarian Ambassador to the United States, Gyorgy Szapary, met with officials from the Adventist Church’s Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department on December 12 at the Hungarian embassy in Washington, D.C. While the law is still set for implementation, Adventist representatives later described the meeting as “cordial” and “productive.”
“We expressed our deep concerns to Ambassador Szapary about Hungary’s recently passed ‘Law on Churches’ and its impact, not just on the Adventist Church, but on many other minority religions as well,” said Dwayne Leslie, the Adventist Church’s director of legislative affairs. Leslie represented the Adventist Church at the meeting along with Ganoune Diop, the church’s representative to the United Nations.
Diop and Leslie provided the ambassador with an overview of the international denomination and the history and scope of the Adventist presence in Hungary. They also explained the potential impact on the Adventist Theological Seminary in Pécel, near Budapest, which serves 66 students.
Adventist Education officials have previously said the seminary is key for providing theological and counseling education in the Hungarian language and cultural context. “Although it’s small, the seminary meets the needs of the church in Hungary for pastors and theologians, as well as for life style and family life counselors,” said Mike Lekic, an associate Education director for the Adventist Church.
Following Monday’s meeting, Diop said the ambassador was gracious and receptive to the issues presented by the Adventist Church. “The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for dialogue — we stated our concerns clearly, and heard the perspective of the Hungarian government,” he said.
When the new law, voted in July, goes into effect next month, it will strip all but 14 “historic” religions of their legal status. Minority religions must then apply to the Hungarian parliament for re-registration.
Since the legislation was passed, Hungary has maintained that the move was not “anti-religion,” but rather a legislative means to root out fraudulent organizations operating behind the protection of religion.
Religious liberty advocates worldwide, however, have decried the law, calling it unnecessary state interference with religion and a setback for human rights in Hungary. More than 300 groups are set to lose their registration, including Hungary’s Methodists, Unitarians, a number of Islamic communities, and many smaller Protestant and evangelical churches.
In November, Diop and John Graz, PARL director for the Adventist world church, met in New York with Hungary’s ambassador to the United Nations to express the church’s concerns about the potential plight not just of Adventists, but of other religious groups in Hungary that will be affected by the new law.
Leslie and Diop said the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department will continue to monitor the situation in Hungary and will provide any assistance requested by local church leaders.
New York Attorney General Launches Religious Rights Initiative to Enforce Anti-discrimination Laws
(Media-Newswire.com) – NEW YORK – Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman today announced the launch of the Religious Rights Initiative, a project of the office’s Civil Rights Bureau that will address religious rights issues and enforce anti-discrimination laws. The Religious Rights Initiative will target faith-based discrimination and violations of religious rights through public education, outreach and law enforcement, including litigation.
The Attorney General announced the launch of the Religious Rights Initiative in remarks before the Anti-Defamation League.
“Our state’s rich history of religious diversity is founded on our nation’s Bill of Rights and enshrined by laws that protect New Yorkers’ right to freely practice their faith,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “The Religious Rights Initiative will focus on violations of this fundamental freedom, ensure that religious rights are protected, and work with communities throughout the state to foster and promote religious tolerance.”
The Religious Rights Initiative will lead a public education and outreach campaign to help inform communities around the state about the requirements of the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The campaign will also advance the Civil Rights Bureau’s enforcement efforts, combat religious discrimination through litigation and advocacy, and promote the process for filing religious discrimination complaints.
As part of the Initiative, the Attorney General’s office will release a series of “Know Your Rights” publications to outline strategies to both address and prevent religious discrimination in a variety of settings and circumstances. The first publication, “Religious Rights in the Workplace,” outlines the practical application of federal and state laws that protect religious freedom and prohibit religious discrimination. A resource for employees and employers, the pamphlet provides guidance concerning requests for religious accommodation in the workplace for days of religious observance, among other issues.
With the number of religious discrimination claims filed with the federal government having more than doubled since 1997, this new initiative reflects Attorney General Schneiderman’s commitment to religious freedom and fulfills his pledge to combat and prevent religious discrimination.
New Yorkers are encouraged to visit the Religious Rights Initiative website for more information, or to report a potential violation at http://www.ag.ny.gov/religiousrights. Violations may also be reported by contacting the Religious Rights Initiative in the Civil Rights Bureau at ( 212 ) 416-8250 or ( 800 ) 771-7755.
The Religious Rights Initiative is being handled by Assistant Attorney General Kayla Gassmann and Director of Community Affairs and Engagement for Religious Rights Alyson Spindell under the supervision of Spencer Freedman, Director of the Religious Rights Initiative and Chief Counsel for Civil Rights, and Civil Rights Bureau Chief Kristen Clarke.
Ron Meier, New York Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: “We welcome Attorney General Schneiderman’s commitment to safeguarding the religious liberty of all New Yorkers. His new ‘Religious Rights Initiative’ is important and timely. We applaud his leadership in this area and look forward to working closely with him on this new effort.”
Richard E. Barnes, Executive Director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said: “As the representatives of the largest religious denomination in the state, issues of religious liberty and discrimination have always been in the forefront of our concerns, both as they relate to threats against individuals and institutions. Such threats have caused the Bishops of the United States to redouble their efforts in examining laws and regulations that support and foster such discrimination, and public policies that threaten religious liberty. We are grateful that Attorney General Schneiderman has undertaken this effort of enormous concern to all those who cherish the rights granted to Americans by our Constitution.”
Reverend A.R. Bernard, Senior Pastor of the Christian Cultural Center, said: “Our country is founded on certain freedoms, and the right to practice our faith is one we must protect. Attorney General Schneiderman’s Religious Rights Initiative will be a critical part of the work to educate communities, prevent discrimination, and promote understanding. I support the Attorney General in his effort against religious discrimination.”
Rev. Chloe Breyer, Executive Director of the Interfaith Center of New York, said: “This is a welcome and timely initiative. New Yorkers of so many faiths and traditions give so much to our state. The time has come for their rights to be respected.”
Dr. Lenny Caro, President & CEO for the Bronx Chamber of Commerce, said: “We commend Attorney General Schneiderman for his commitment to this issue. New York State is a melting pot of a multitude of religions. The Religious Rights Initiative will provide businesses and employees with the guidance needed to ensure that religious rights are respected in the workplace. This project is a crucial resource.”
Safia Hussain, President of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, said: “The protection of religious rights is a critical issue for the Muslim community in New York. Although Muslims are approximately two percent of the American population, anti-Muslim bias complaints account for twenty-five percent of the total number of complaints received by the EEOC in recent years. Muslim children remain the unfortunate target of bullying at school, and campaigns against the establishment of mosques continue to attack the rights of Muslims to freely practice their faith.”
Sapreet Kaur, Executive Director of the Sikh Coalition, said: “We wholeheartedly welcome the launch of Religious Rights Initiative. Sikh New Yorkers, like members of many faith communities, face many challenges to the full realization of their rights under our state and federal laws. Attorney General Schneiderman is to be commended for bringing focus and attention to these issues.”
Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said: “The right of religious freedom is fundamental, and it is therefore important for the Attorney General’s office to help the public understand the scope of what is often a complex issue.”
Todd McFarland, Associate General Counsel of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, said: “The Seventh-day Adventist Church applauds the New York Attorney General’s initiative being led by the Civil Rights Bureau. Religious freedom is our first freedom and is as important and relevant in today’s religiously pluralistic society as it was to our founding fathers. We look forward to assisting the Bureau in any way we can.”
Michael S. Miller, Executive Vice President and CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, said: “Attorney General Schneiderman is creating a ’311′ to help people learn more about their religious rights in New York and a ’911′ hotline for New Yorkers denied appropriate religious accommodations in the workplace and other venues. We commend Attorney General Schneiderman on this initiative and his ongoing efforts to protect the religious rights of all New Yorkers.”
Zead Ramadan, President, Board of Directors of the Council on American Islamic Relations-NY, said: “We applaud the Attorney General for his bold new initiative to combat religious discrimination in New York State. As the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group, dedicated to empowering the Muslim community, we look forward to working toward our common goals of ensuring religious freedom and preventing discrimination.”