On December 6, 2007, candidate Mitt Romney gave this speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas in order to reach evangelicals who were concerned about how Romney’s Mormon religion might affect his presidency.  Michael Luo of The New York Times gives some background on the speech. The transcript is reproduced below.

Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address:

It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams, ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ ? the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God. We are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars — no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’

My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand , so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom. . . killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion. Rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God …they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’

God bless the United States of America.”

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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

“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

EXCERPT:  The Roman Catholic position on contraception takes a thoroughly biblical worldview and tries to make a general mandate that only a minority of Roman Catholics themselves follow. This view has not rallied other religionists the way that the Catholic Church’s anti-abortion stance has. The abortion issue has become a powerful political rallying point. Contraception has not, until now, had anywhere near the political resonance.

…

The real sleeper issue here, as it is with much of the political warfare of the present day, is money. Liberty magazine has consistently warned church organizations against taking state money. We have from the very beginning of the Faith-Based Initiative of the previous administration (an initiative still alive and kicking against the First Amendment establishment prick) warned that it is inimical to church-state separation for public monies to be used to advance any particular faith view. So it would seem a little ungrateful to the public purse for a church to object when the state applies generally applicable regulations to an operation it might tend to see as its pocket money project.

Read More at: http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1840

EXCERPT:

HOUSTON (AP) — A Texas agency has turned down a request by an Orthodox Jewish school in Houston to reschedule a championship game potentially involving its boys’ basketball team because the game time falls during the Sabbath.

The Beren Academy advanced to the semifinals in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools’ 2A tournament with a 23-5 record and was scheduled to play Dallas Covenant at 9 p.m. on Friday.

Beren players observe the Sabbath between Friday night and Saturday night and won’t play basketball during those hours.

http://highschoolsportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/02/beren-boys-hoops-coach-chris-cole-still.html

Pastor Nadarkhani is a true hero of the faith and a witness against religious intolerance of all stripes.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/22/iran-court-convicts-christian-pastor-convert-to-death/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Bookmark this page to track the latest developments.

The funding and function of USCIRF was the subject of a recent Liberty Magazine Roundtable discussion.

Under pre-existing law, employers were required to provide accommodation so long as it did not cause an “undue hardship” for the employer. However, since “undue hardship” was not clearly defined, it was generally viewed as a requirement that the “de minimis cost or burden” standard be applied.

The new City law amends sections 8-102 and 8-107 of the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) to defines what “undue hardship” means:

“Undue hardship” shall mean “an accommodation requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of the workplace or a violation of a bona fide seniority system).” Factors to be considered in determining whether the accommodation constitutes an undue economic hardship shall include, but not be limited to:

• The identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and the cost of retaining or hiring of employees or transferring of employees from one facility to another, in relation to the size and operating cost of the employer.
• The number of individuals who will need the particular accommodation to a sincerely held religious observance or practice, and
• For an employer with multiple facilities, the degree to which the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities will make the accommodation more difficult or expensive.

The Act also provides that employers in New York City can establish that a religious accommodation will result in an “undue hardship” by showing that it will result in the employee’s inability to perform the essential functions of his or her position.

Potential remedies for violating the law include reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and employers could be subject to a civil penalty of $125,000.

From a practical standpoint, employers should consult with human resources experts to ensure compliance by making sure that anti-discrimination policies are up to date, and job descriptions should be tailored to accurately describe portions of the job duties that involve attendance, availability, and dress / grooming requirements.

This law is of particular significance to Muslims and Sikhs who have faced an increase in discrimination since the events of 9/11, and will apply to both public and private sector employers.

###

By Michael D. Peabody -

In August 2011, the Pew Research Institute released a study, Rising Restrictions on Religion, which found that more than a third of the population of the world lives in nations where government restrictions or social hostilities involving religion are increasing. Only 1% live in countries where things are getting better.

In 1998 when Congress, as part of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), approved the creation of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Congress believed that it was important that the USCIRF operate as an independent governmental body to monitor executive branch activities related to religious freedom and to make recommendations for Presidential action when it found abuses.

Under the IRFA, the Commission has communicated with embassies around the world to find out the state of freedom, and has produced reports outlining the state of freedom around the world. This includes identifying “countries of particular concern” (CPC) that have engaged in torture, prolonged imprisonment, or “other flagrant denial[s] of the right to life, liberty, or the security of persons.” Once a country is tagged as a CPC, per the IRFA, the government must, subject to the right to waiver, engage anything from bilateral agreements to sanctions in order to encourage improvements. There are eight CPCs at the present time.

The Secretary of State can then make recommendations as to how to address these issues. The White House has yet to issue any new actions or sanctions against a CPC solely for violations of religious freedom, and instead has placed religious freedom issues, if they are mentioned at all, under the umbrella of existing sanctions. The result is that religious freedom issues have gotten lost in the shuffle. In short, under the IRFA, the United States is supposed to indicate that a portion of, or the entirety of sanctions being imposed depending on the situation, is due to religious freedom violations.

In the past, the United States was relatively isolationist when dealing with religious freedom issues in other countries, leaving those issues to non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The U.S. instead worked to preserve its own interests around the world. As an indirect result, many otherwise restrictive nations were forced into situations of regime change resulting in increased religious freedom within their borders. For instance, after an extended Cold War essentially bankrupted the repressive Soviet Union, its citizens enjoyed a period of unparalleled religious freedom. Today, the State Department has to tackle a wide range of pressing issues involving direct threats to the United States including terrorism, threats of a nuclear Iran, chaos in the Middle East, warfare on multiple fronts, and many other issues.

As a result, the government is not always in a diplomatic position to address religious freedom issues separately. As I write this, the United States is experiencing unprecedented tension with Pakistan regarding the War on Terror and the possibility of significant armed conflict seems nearly imminent. Pakistan is also a CPC, and in the midst of this if USCIRF were to operate “properly” the President should also be levying sanctions against Pakistan for the way it treats its own citizens when in reality the flow of U.S. dollars to Pakistan may be the only thing preventing all-out war.

The USCIRF should be continued – it has an important function as a monitor of international religious freedom, but as long as the State Department is also engaged in its fundamental duty of protecting the interests of the United States above those of any other nation, it will not be able to fulfill its complete charter of recommending direct action against hostile countries without facing a great deal of suspicion of either diplomatic or religious mission. While many hostile nations promote a particular religious worldview with impunity, and act under color of that faith as they carry out persecution, the USCIRF must be careful in contrast not to be seen as fulfilling a mission designed to extend American Christianity. If it is perceived across borders and language barriers as a low key Medieval Crusade, it will lose its effectiveness and be a hindrance to international diplomacy.

Religions cross borders, cultures, and languages, and thus the promotion of freedom of religion is generally perceived as a mission of peace, not a mission of war. Because the parameters of religion differ from national borders, unless a hostile nation changes its internal character, religious freedom abuses will continue either officially or unofficially.

In a perfect world, the tasks of the USCIRF would probably be best handled by the United Nations, but that body seems unlikely to move in a productive direction along these lines anytime soon. The reality is, as uncomfortable as it might seem, aside from the Holy See, there is no independent recognized country in the world that can carry an olive branch of religious peace without an overt direct threat of violence or sanctions. It would therefore appear incumbent on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and religious organizations to assert religious freedom using whatever peaceful and cooperative methods that are available.

This does not mean that USCIRF should be allowed to wither on the vine – its role as a monitor of religious freedom is invaluable and it establishes this sense in the minds of Americans and shows the global community that this nation holds onto and respects these inalienable values regardless of whether they can be imposed on other nations. The USCIRF is one mechanism by which the United States can remain at the forefront of promoting the ideals of freedoms of speech, conscience, religion, and belief.

The point was made by secretary of state Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who, at a Vatican meeting of European Bishops’ Conferences on the New Evangelisation yesterday said: “The [global] crisis illustrates clearly the untenability of a market that has become totally self-referential . . .

“This present difficult situation prompts a whole series of new questions about the responsibilities and the ethics of the marketplace; it urgently asks a fundamental question about the destiny, dignity and spiritual vocation of man . . . ”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/1123/1224307999115.html

The conference pulled together issues from the federal level and various states. For instance, in Illinois, after 40 years of cooperation, government officials stopped working with Catholic Charities on adoptions and foster-care placements because the agency refused to recognize a new civil union law. Bishops are suing the state, claiming that denying funds because of the religious beliefs of the church is impermissible. In New York, the Catholic church has complained that the religious exemption to gay-marriage laws is too weak.

On health care, the Catholic Church has argued that there should be a broader exemption to the federal mandate that private insurers pay for contraception. The church is also fighting the Health and Human Services Department’s recent denial of renewal of financial aid for their anti-human trafficking work. The ACLU had filed suit opposing government funds to anti-human trafficking groups that “impose religiously based restrictions on reproductive health services,” claiming that many of the women who are victims of rape and forced prostitution are in need of reproductive health services.

This is coming on the heels of recent attempts by the church to pressure Catholic politicians to vote in line with church teachings.
Each year, Catholic charities across the nation receive hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, which have increased over the years, and the battle for “religious liberty” is about who gets to control the way that the tax dollars are spent.

In the past, Catholic public policy discussion covered a broad range of issues ranging from immigration and workers’ rights to nuclear proliferation. Today, the focus has narrowed to the issues of abortion and gay rights.

The conference has formed a new “religious liberty” committee, the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty and is hiring another attorney and lobbyist to address “religious liberty and marriage issues” on Capitol Hill. The Committee is also planning to lobby against a Congressional repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

Sadly, as part of this change in focus, the term “religious liberty” is being redefined away from protecting the rights to speak, believe, and practice religion. Instead, “religious liberty” is apparently the right to receive government money without restrictions.

And we cannot ignore the fact that other Americans have sincere religious disagreement with the positions being promoted by the bishops. Are the rights of conscience of those who take a different stance on the disputed issues to be dismissed as illegitimate?

To be sure, these are not easy questions to answer. Certainly institutions should not be compelled to act against their religious mission. Yet, the state does not have an implicit obligation to fund them. The Church can assert its right speak in the the public square, but it should not assume power it does not have in order to force the rest of society to follow its lead.

In 1773, a Baptist minister in New England observed that where “church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued.”

That separation should not be torn down in the name of religious liberty. I hope that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops will keep this in mind as it begins its new chapter of advocacy in Congress, and recognize that they are not the arbiters of morality in the nation, but rather are one of many organizations representing the broad spectrum of belief and non-belief in the United States.

(Click here to read Archbishop William T. Lori’s speech at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

###

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.”

http://media-newswire.com/release_1162315.html

For more: http://www.katc.com/mobile/news/court-affirms-prisoner-religious-right

http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=531752

VATICAN CITY,Oct 24 (Reuters) – - The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.

http://uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/idUKL5E7LO1LS20111024?irpc=932

From the Vatican document:

“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalizes world.”