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.

Yesterday was a premiere event for the Religious Right movement. In churches, homes, and other venues around the country, conservative Christians watched the premiere of “One Nation Under God,” a DVD created by the group United in Purpose, headed by Bill Dallas. (You can find out more general information about the DVD at the One Nation Under God website.) We attended a showing that was being held at the Old West Cowboy Church in Robinson, TX. Yes it was exactly as it sounds. One man showed up in spurs and chaps on a horse. The pastor of the church, who is also a charter member of the Waco Tea Party, welcomed us and talked about how it was important for Christians to “repossess America.” He told us that about 2,500 different venues would be premiering the DVD and they hoped to have 50,000 showings before the 2012 election.

There were several speakers on the DVD, and each of them had two responsibilities. First, to make sure that they established the idea that America is a Christian nation that that Judeo-Christian principles are to be inculcated into government. Second, the goal was to convince Christians that they should be politically involved, vote their values and encourage other Christians that they should do the same. Several popular conservatives are recruited to help make these points. Despite the multiplicity of voices, there are some problematic themes that run throughout the presentations. Each of the presenters engages in some element of either misrepresentation or misinterpretation of facts, specious logic, or just plain bad theology.

The misinterpretation of facts was somewhat expected. Most of it was conservative evangelical talking points. Both David Barton and Newt Gingrich made mention of the fact that the Supreme Court has taken prayer out of schools. Of course this is not true. Engel v. Vitale (1963) did not take prayer out of schools. Instead it ruled that teacher led school prayer is unconstitutional. The Court has since ruled that sectarian prayers at school events are unconstitutional. But the right of the individual to pray or lead other like-minded individuals in prayer is still allowed. To obfuscate this point is to pull the wool over people’s eyes. Barton also misinterprets the US Constitution. He says at one point that Art. VII of the Constitution incorporates the Declaration of Independence. Art. VII actually says, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” I am sure Mr. Barton has a reason for saying that a one sentence article of the Constitution that makes no mention of the Declaration of Independence somehow incorporates that document, but he gave no further explanation.

Gingrich misinterpreted the historical understanding of Thomas Jefferson. Gingrich said that historians say that Jefferson didn’t believe in God, except that no reputable historian would say that. The truth is that Jefferson was a Deist who believed in the concept of God, but not in the supernatural elements of Christianity. People like Barton, Gingrich, Bill Dallas, and others have a historical problem. The US Constitution makes no mention of God or Christianity, and has some explicit anti-religious statements (i.e., the Establishment Clause and the prohibition on religious tests for holding office). Therefore, in order to make their argument, they have to connect the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, and that’s a hard sell unless you’re willing to stretch the facts.

The speakers on the One Nation Under God DVD also engage in some interesting and fallacious logic. Most of it is found in the assumptions that they make. Barton for example, makes two very dangerous assumptions. First, he assumes that nothing has changed in the 235 years since the Declaration of Independence. So the vastly different context of today has no effect on how he views what our nation should do and what the Constitution should allow. The great strength of the Constitution in my opinion is that the Founders were smart enough to build in flexibility so that the document could adjust to fit the times. Barton, Gingrich, Dobson, Rodriguez, and the other speakers on this DVD seek to bring America back to an era where it was more homogenous. Gingrich in fact quoted a statistic that 80% of Americans believe in “classical America.” I do not know what that means, but that description is scary to me. Dr. Timothy Johnson, the head of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, an African-American conservative group, also used specious logic in order to attack liberal Christians. Dr. Johnson said that he did not understand how people could say they are pro-life themselves and then vote for pro-choice candidates. Dr. Johnson seems not to be able to understand that there are some people who believe in their personal morality, and yet do not want to impose that morality on others.

Mr. Barton makes the same illogical leap in his discussion of Christians in the voting booth. He assumes that all Christians feel the same way he does, and that if those Christians vote pro-choice or pro- gay marriage, then they are not voting their values. This type of rhetoric is disingenuous and does not help to win people to their cause.

Finally, there are just some shocking cases of bad theology. David Barton cites several texts that he claims stand for certain propositions. We checked each of the ones we could manage to write down, and all of them were misinterpreted. For example, Barton cites Is. 33:22 as support for the separation of powers. While that verse does mention the 3 branches of government (king, lawgiver, and judge) the verse says that the Lord is all those things. Therefore, a government that followed Isaiah’s words there would vest all those powers in one position, because that is what the Bible says in that verse. Reverend Samuel Rodriguez states that there is a biblical and moral imperative for Christians to vote a certain way, but cites no biblical support. Dr. James Dobson makes 2 egregious theological errors. When asked about whether Christians should be involved in politics, Dr. Dobson quotes Abraham Lincoln not the Bible. Dr. Dobson goes on to say that when a country forgets who they are, then they are destroyed. He implies that if America forgets their Christian heritage and begins to allow abortion and gay marriage then they will be destroyed. This statement is not just bad theology, but it is also offensive to every group of people who have been oppressed in the history of America. So God’s destruction will not fall because America enslaved Africans, destroyed their families, raped and killed them, but it will fall because of the unborn and gay people? America did not forget who they were when they were oppressing women or Asians or Catholics or any other group, but now is the time America is moving away from its Judeo-Christian principles. As with Gingrich’s statement about longing for a “classical America,” this statement bothered me. Dr. Dobson is using his theology to whitewash history, and to ignore the fact that America has never been the Christian nation that these people envision it to have been.

Dr. Dobson is using his theology to whitewash history, and to ignore the fact that America has never been the Christian nation that these people envision it to have been.

As I think about the events of the day and the content of the DVD, two final points jump out to me. One, Newt Gingrich said what the goal of this DVD really is. At one point he states that it is time for people of faith to take back power from the minority elite. That is the real issue. It is not truly about having this nation be Christian. It is not truly about feeling persecuted for their majority faith. Rather, this is about wanting to be in control of others. To compel people to follow their will (not even the will of God).

Two, my wife and I noticed something interesting as we sat amongst the members of the Old West Cowboy Church. The pastor provided note paper for us and encouraged us to take notes for our own edification. As we looked around room, we realized that we were the only people attempting to take detailed notes. Most people did not write anything down at all. Some only wrote down a sentence here or there. My wife and I were the only people who attempted to record all the major points being made by all the speakers. This lack of critical thought was the most appalling thing to me. These people were being sold on all kinds of historical, logical, and biblical inaccuracies, and they were more than willing to accept it without inspection.

—–

Jason Hines is Associate Editor for ReligiousLiberty.TV an independent religious liberty website. A Harvard Law graduate, Jason 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

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

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency appeal filed by the Medina Valley Independent School District. Its San Antonio-area high school was ordered by a federal judge earlier this week to forbid students from asking audience members to join in prayer or bow their heads during Saturday’s graduation.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Christa and Danny Schultz, who said watching their son receive a diploma this weekend would amount to forced religious participation. The Castroville parents argued that traditions such as invocation and benediction excluded their beliefs.

Read the full article

The SF Chronicle’s editorial board urges voters to turn away this “wacky measure,” so they don’t have to depend on courts to throw it out.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby calls the effort “madness.”

The Jewish Week finds the proposal to be “a blatant violation of the First Amendment.”

Read the full article

Plaintiffs’ attorney Joe Brandon Jr. had argued that the mosque violated his clients’ constitutional rights, claiming that the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro’s members were compelled by their religion to subdue non-Muslims.

In his ruling issued Tuesday, Chancellor Robert Corlew dismissed a majority of complaints raised by the 17 plaintiffs, except on claims the county violated the state Open Meetings Act by not providing proper notice for the meeting where the mosque site plan was approved. The court has not yet set a date to hear the open meetings complaint.

Read the full article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Blakeley, 393.

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

[5] Blakeley, 298.

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

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

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

photo credit: Ksayer1

###

Michael Peabody is the editor of ReligiousLiberty.TV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Stakes Are High
2. Scenario One
3. Scenario Two
4. Scenario Three
5. Cairo & the Emergence of the “Olive Branch Doctrine”
6. Obama’s Interfaith Vision

By Gregory W. Hamilton, President

Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA)
March 15, 2011

President Barack Obama came to Cairo in 2009 with the purpose of announcing to the Arab-Muslim world that he was not following his predecessor’s “Democracy Project” as a matter of U.S. Middle East policy. One could call this Obama’s “Olive Branch Doctrine”: the message that interfaith tolerance & unity, rather than the insistence of religious freedom and democracy, would be the foreign policy model pursued by his Administration. In a stroke of illusory foreign policy realism,¹ he was communicating to Arab Muslims that it was not the purpose of the United States to convert anyone to its way of thinking, politically or religiously.

In the midst of an astonishing Twitter and Facebook Revolution² that has unleashed a frantic generational demand for democracy and regime change in many countries of the Middle East, including North Africa, the Arab-Muslim world has become a strategic chess match for ideological and political hegemony between the United States and the Mullah-ruled country of Iran. At stake is President Barack Obama’s overall foreign policy approach involving democratic reform, and the political vehicle being used to successfully propagate it—the Administration’s Internet Freedom Agenda.³

But directly connected to it is his international religious freedom policy; and when tied to his overall approach to foreign policy one discovers an emerging “Obama Doctrine”—what I call “Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine”—which relies on calculated notions of interfaith understanding and tolerance as the best components toward achieving democratic reform in today’s world, and specifically in the Arab-Muslim world.

Pundits claim that President Obama does not have a specifically enunciated foreign policy “doctrine,” per se, but it seems clear that one is emerging. To understand the religious aspect of Mr. Obama’s nascent, yet struggling, foreign policy, one must first understand it in context of the current political and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Arab world.

The Stakes Are High

Four days after Egypt’s bold revolutionary success, this chivalrous chess match became more vivid when our country’s President sharply contrasted Egypt’s reasonably peaceful revolution with Iran’s violent repression of its own protestors who have been calling for the overthrow of its clerical regime. He said, “I find it ironic that you’ve got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully.”⁴ The same day, the Iranian Parliament, from direct pressure by the country’s clerical rulers, called for the immediate execution of all opposition leaders.⁵ So much for freedom!

Siding with the United States in an effort to keep a strategic check on Iran are the autocratic monarchical rulers of Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab League, which makes up all the Gulf States, North Africa, and the Mediterranean corridor. Iran’s Persian-speaking Shias do not rub shoulders easily with the Sunni Arabs of the southern Mediterranean, whom they regard as their cultural inferiors. For now, Arab unrest appears to be enriching Iran’s power and influence over the chief Sunni proponent, Saudi Arabia.⁶

Yet Saudi Arabia, while clearly nervous, acts cocksure that it will survive the current unrest. Saudi Arabia’s Interior Minister, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, boasted recently that “Saudi Arabia is immune to the protests because it is guided by religious law that its citizens will not question.”⁷ In addition, King Abdullah, upon his return from surgery in the United States, made available $37 billion dollars in assistance for those seeking to buy their first home, and other needs badly wanted by the people, as a gesture that he is willing to make major economic concessions in order to keep the peace and thus ensure the people’s loyalty to his monarchical rule.

But when the dust settles who will the real winner be? Iran? Or the young people of the Middle East, who have the opportunity to at last be free of their autocratic rulers, which is due in large part to the fast-paced technology coming from the West? Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed that Islam and Islamic values was the winner in Egypt, proclaiming that an “Islamic Awakening” had occurred. For him it was an Allah-inspired beginning.

The editors of Economist magazine wryly noted that while Iran’s revolution of 1978-79 was Islamic to the core, Egypt’s was not – “or not yet.” This is because Mr. Khamenei believes that “the fall of Mr. Mubarak can only usher in a government less friendly to Israel and less of a ‘servant’ of the United States—a government more after Iran’s own revolutionary heart.” And he may be right, because the potential of “an alliance between revolutionary Iran and Islamist elements in a new Egyptian government” – or Tunisian, Moroccan, Yemeni, Omani, Saudi, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Libyan, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian governments – is not farfetched.⁸ This is clearly the concern of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah who—to the chagrin of the Obama administration—recently ordered 1,000 troops into neighboring Bahrain to quell the revolutionary unrest that is mostly led by Shiite Muslims. The King is sending the clear signal that he does not believe Mr. Obama is doing enough to back Bahrain’s royal family, and as David Sanger of The New York Times put it, has “little patience with American messages about embracing what Mr. Obama calls ‘universal values,’ including peaceful protests.”⁹

Economist summed up the situation pretty well with this sobering description: “Iran already enjoys great influence in Lebanon through its proxy there, Hezbollah, and has warm relations with Hamas (itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) in Israel’s Gaza Strip. If Iran were able to make high-placed friends in Egypt, where Mr. Ahmadinejad is popular for defying the West, Israel’s sense of encirclement by its most formidable adversary would be almost complete.”¹⁰ Add to that mix Iranian influence with the predominantly Shiite countries of Bahrain and Yemen, and the potentially cascading unrest of Shiites in Saudi Arabia.

Scenario One

In this chess match, there are two overarching scenarios being bandied about by foreign policy experts. One optimistic scenario is that the widespread revolutionary movement of young protestors to overthrow and replace their countries’ autocratic regimes with freely elected and “friendly” democratic governments, will succeed, and in turn spill over and overtake Iran’s theocratic regime.

Scenario Two

Another scenario is that with Iran’s supreme leader calling the current revolutionary storm an “Islamic Awakening,” this movement will lead to similar theocratically governed regimes all throughout the Middle East, with Sharia law becoming the radical anti-secular constitutional foundation. (In Tunisia, these demands are already being heard in mass protests, where, even though 98 percent of the population is Muslim, the culture is socially liberal and pervaded by Western lifestyles.)¹¹ The strategic purpose outlined in this argument is that the Middle East will eventually be made up of mostly Islamist-ruled countries surrounding Israel on all sides.¹²

Fareed Zakaria—more of a proponent of the first scenario described above—believes that this second scenario is unlikely because most Sunni and Shia Muslims located outside of Iran (with the exception of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) do not want Iran’s thug-like theocratic government. They want, he said, what Turkey has and what Indonesia has – mixing together secular forms of democracy with laws enforcing strong Islamic moral values emanating from Sharia law, which claims to practice religious and ethnic tolerance in compliance with the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. (But do they? See part two of this article.)¹³

Zakaria’s viewpoint, however salient, is easily offset. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that at the outset of the revolutionary eruption in Tunisia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “blasted Arab governments for stalled political change, warning that extremists were exploiting a lack of democracy to promote radical agendas across the Middle East.” Filling the vacuum, she said, are “extremist elements, terrorist groups and others who would prey off desperation and poverty.” Clinton warned that “the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand.”¹⁴

Islamist groups have typically proven to be politically and socially more well organized and in a position to take advantage of democratic processes and changes that result from the peoples’ revolutionary demands. This puts them in a position to fill the void when dictators are overthrown and empowers them to hijack the sincere intentions of the revolutionaries and the revolution itself. How does this happen? As Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security advisor for President George W. Bush explains it, dictators “leave behind a civic culture that has been drastically weakened and moderate parties that are disorganized, impoverished, and without recognizable leaders.” Abrams observes: “For 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak told us to stick with him, or the opposition Muslim Brotherhood would grow stronger. Well, we stuck with him, and the Muslim Brotherhood grew stronger. As he crushed the political center and left, the Brotherhood became the main forum for opposition to his regime.” This, he argues, is what will allow the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to play a powerful role in whatever civilian government is elected once elections are actually held there.¹⁵ In addition, Iran is notoriously successful in supplying political and economic resources to its favored Islamist party in order to ensure electoral outcomes that favor their strategic gambit in the Middle East.

Israel is very concerned about this second possible scenario due to the fact that it has recently witnessed the seizing of the reins of government in Lebanon by Hezbollah, Iran’s well-funded and militarily supplied political apostle. This realistic fear of encirclement provoked Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to state that “even though its quiet and deterrence exists—Hezbollah remembers the heavy beating they suffered from us in 2006—but it is not forever.” We “may have to re-enter Lebanon,” he said.¹⁶

For historian and former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, the stakes are higher when talking about a nuclear Iran, which, he observes, may mean that we are heading down the path toward nuclear “Armageddon.” Meacham argues that nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East could become more pronounced and globally destabilizing: “The more people with access to nuclear weapons increases the risk that irrationality will enter the equation; which is a polite way of saying that human forces—pride, ambition, fanaticism—will always confound the most elegant of geopolitical calculations.”¹⁷ “Armageddon” talk is not uncommon these days. Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, believes that “if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Middle East will look like hell.”¹⁸

Scenario Three

Of course, a third and less dire scenario postures that some autocratic rulers, like the Abdullah’s in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, might successfully convince protestors in their country that they will institute democratic and economic reforms, along with increased human rights provisions, and actually follow through. This explains why the Obama Administration has been strongly encouraging Arab rulers to listen to the protestors in their call for democratic reform and to refrain from violence in the attempt to restore order.

The question of who will win is also tied to Mr. Obama’s apparent break with the traditional U.S. policy of propping up autocratic regimes for the sake of preserving international security and the flow of oil in a terrorist charged world. For example, there has been evident tension between Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah and Barack Obama over Obama’s handling of Hosni Mubarak’s standing in Egypt during the Egyptian revolt.¹⁹

The United States is definitely in a tough spot. Mr. Obama admonished autocratic leaders, both “friend and foe alike,” to “get out ahead of change” because “the world is changing.” He said that advances in freedom of communication through smart phones, Facebook and Twitter were forcing governments to act with the consent of the people, and that they could not afford to be “behind the curve.”²⁰ Admittedly, however, the swiftness of the current unrest in the Middle East has also caught Mr. Obama off guard; this, even despite Mr. Obama’s foresight in August of 2010 to assign a special commission to study all of the best innovative approaches to democratically reform the Arab-Muslim world.²¹

But that is not how he began his presidency in 2009.

Cairo & the Emergence of the “Olive Branch Doctrine”

It was in Turkey, and then Cairo, barely five months into the first full year of his presidency, that Mr. Obama confidently launched his foreign policy legacy and his diplomatic push for democratic reform in the Arab-Muslim Middle East, using Turkey and Indonesia as models of democracy – “road maps” that the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East, including Egypt, should emulate.²²

On June 4, 2009, in a speech before Egypt’s government, military and religious leaders titled “A New Beginning,” Mr. Obama put forward his policy goals affecting this volatile region. In it, he stressed political, civil, and economic freedom: “I have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from people; the freedom to live as you choose.”²³ The primary purpose of the speech was to address the matter of religious freedom and tolerance. (As we shall see, he frequently interchanged these terms to meet the Arab-Muslim community half-way.)

Yet, in a bit of historical irony, Mr. Obama came to Cairo in 2009 with the purpose of announcing to the Arab-Muslim world that during his presidency he was not following his predecessor’s “Democracy Project” as a matter of U.S. Middle East policy. One could call this Obama’s “Olive Branch” doctrine. The message was that religious tolerance, rather than the insistence of religious freedom and democracy, would be the foreign policy model pursued by the Obama Administration. By “religious tolerance” was meant that Mr. Obama, in a stroke of supposed foreign policy realism—as opposed to President George W. Bush’s and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s idealism²⁴ —was communicating to Egyptians and all of the Arab-Muslim world that it was not the purpose of the United States to try to convert anyone to its way of thinking, politically or religiously.

Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, praised President Obama’s speech, saying that it demonstrated that Obama understood the complexities that existed between freedom and tolerance in the Arab-Muslim world, and that he was an American president that Arab leaders could trust. He said, “Under the past administration there was a feeling that the Islamic world was a group of terrorists, Islam was hated and Muslims should be watched and that the previous administration was scared of any Muslim.” “But,” he observed, “Obama came and said, ‘We will not fight Muslims and Islam.’” He said that this was because “He is a sympathetic man” who believes that “Islam is a heavenly religion.” Mubarak concluded that Mr. Obama’s attempt to reach out to the Arab-Muslim world placed the United States in a more positive light in the eyes of individual Muslims, and not just with Arab leaders.²⁵ Mubarak’s words were uncannily predictive of something to come, something that included him and the country he governed for nearly 30 years.

On one hand, by reversing course and disavowing President Bush’s idealistic approach of promoting through force, if necessary, the American constitutional ideal of religious freedom and human rights, and the American democratic way of life, the Muslim peoples of the Arab-Muslim Middle East have seen a political opening to take things into their own hands. In a shared cause of resistance to Western leaders who have been perceived – however erroneously – as wanting (since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) to supplant Islam and their way of life, the people no longer see the need of continuing to harness their “strong horse” dictators whom Western leaders have propped up for years in the name of regional stability and security.²⁶

On the other hand, by trying to avoid the failed U.S. democratic projects of the past that brought a militant Islamic Hamas and Hezbollah to the borders of Israel, it created a political wedge, forcing the hands of U.S. policymakers to choose between the Arab-Muslim people’s quest for political and religious autonomy to direct their own path, and their autocratic rulers, who have been valued by the U.S. as their most strategic ally against Muslim extremists and terrorists. By communicating caution and patience in the midst of the revolutionary demands of the people,²⁷ this “safe” approach initially caused many of the protesters in Egypt to accuse Mr. Obama and the United States, including European leaders, of hypocrisy. To be sure, the strategic chess game that Mr. Obama is playing is full of unanticipated choices and dicey moves, but this placed Barack Obama and his administration in the untenable position of being perceived as “Johnny-come-lately” champions of the people’s revolution.²⁸ Admittedly, while it was a nearly impossible balancing act not inconsistent with the administrative approaches and experiences of past U.S. presidents, including Ronald Reagan,²⁹ this confusing and unsteady pattern (i.e., “bungling” to his critiques) – whether real or perceived – risks having the Carteresque effect of permanently shaping a key part of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy and making whatever foreign policy influence remains seem fairly weak in the eyes of his electoral opposition in the U.S., including world leaders and the international community.

Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, recently observed in an exclusive interview on CNN with Fareed Zakaria that Mr. Obama and his administration must get away from an apologetic, “hand-wringing,” approach to U.S. foreign policy, and in particular his “hands-off” posture of neutrality in the Middle East which was the essence of his “A New Beginning” speech in Cairo in 2009, the foundational framework for Mr. Obama’s foreign policy in the Muslim world. He said that the president should move full tilt toward reviving some version of former President Bush’s “Project Democracy,” and to quit trying to pick winners – Royal Monarchies like Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as opposed to Presidents like in Egypt and Yemen – in a new Middle East. ³⁰ He argued that if Mr. Obama does not do this, the void left in a transformed Arab-Muslim world is one which the Mullah’s of Iran will exploit to their natural electoral advantage. Wolfowitz stressed that “the United States must be there” to compete with Iran’s proven ability to insert itself into the affairs of other countries of the Arab-Muslim Middle East (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Shiite majority in Iraq) where they have the potential to reshape it in its own radical image.³¹ For Wolfowitz, this is also true of Al Qaeda in a potentially chaotic aftermath in Libya unless the United States, with the international community, inserts itself into the equation in both humanitarian and military ways.³²

Obama’s Interfaith Vision

President Obama appears to have a foreign policy objective in mind toward advancing democracy and democratic reform throughout the world, and particularly in the Arab-Muslim Middle East, but not exactly in the way that Mr. Wolfowitz had in mind. If there is one move President Obama seems to be counting on, it is the promise he sees in both Indonesia and Turkey as models for bringing both the East and West together, no matter how inferior it is to the American ideal, and it is the basis for the “Obama Doctrine.” It represents a subtle yet distinct shift toward religious “tolerance,” away from the ideal of “freedom” – or somewhere in-between – as the national and international norm.

It is a rather optimistic model that is rarely recognized or understood by pundits, foreign policy scholars, and the media – left, right, and center. It is a grand strategy that quietly sails through the criticism in a steady and self-convinced manner, representing Obama’s clear affinity with the young protestors – not only for their yearning for freedom and democracy, but risking even dumping a century’s worth of U.S. support for Arab dictators, their oil (i.e., think alternative energy), and global stability – to support his and their shared yearning to engineer an interfaith approach to solving the world’s religious and political conflicts. Mr. Obama sees it as the best possible means toward achieving world peace—the one last ray of hope in Mr. Obama’s heart and mind, a hope that matches what an Obama biographer, Stephen Mansfield, described in The Faith of Barack Obama as the “eclectic” multi-faith experience that is Mr. Obama based on his upbringing and personal life’s journey.³³

According to Mansfield, the President’s foreign and domestic policy strategies appear irreversibly connected to his pluralistic religious experiences—Catholic, Islamic, Atheistic, and Pentecostal—and his years of doing community and social work. This in turn informs his intellect, his decision-making and communication style, and more specifically his Kumbaya togetherness or collective interfaith approach to foreign policy: the all-too-familiar “let’s just get along” appeal.³⁴ This is evidenced by Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech emphasizing “A New Beginning”:

I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’ (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.³⁵

Ideally speaking, this interfaith approach that he hopes will appeal to a new and vibrant generation of young people in the Middle East and around the globe, presumes to bring most people of faith together in the quest for shared democratic and economic values (i.e., world peace), with the affect of forming the most vocal and powerful political force the world has ever seen.

According to a CBS News column published by The Washington Post, President Obama is “preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region’s politics.” This includes “distinguishing between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government.” One senior administration official stated that “We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. It’s the behavior of political parties and government that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.”³⁶ Harvard Professor Tarek Masoud believes that “if Muslims” in Egypt actually “got into power, if they go into parliament, they’d try to make some laws that conform with their vision of what Islam requires,” but “they would not,” in keeping with Sunni Muslim religious and political tradition, “try to have the clerics be in charge,” which he says is opposite from the Shiite model in Iran.³⁷

But in President Obama’s overarching argument for a “new beginning” with Islam, “is the clear suggestion that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible.” After disavowing Bush’s democracy promotion in his June 2009 address at Cairo University, President Obama gave sanction to this sentiment when he said that Bush’s approach did not “lessen my commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people,” adding that “each nation gives life to the principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.”³⁸ This demonstrates, to a certain degree, that Obama realizes that the Shiite model of governing in Iran – a cleric controlled government – is not acceptable in a democratic world. In addition, it seems clear that this is Obama’s way of trying an untried approach to bridge the chasm in today’s “Clash of Civilizations” between the Christian West and the Muslim East.

But this approach is alarming to European Union and NATO leaders, as well as Israel, because of the inevitability that “religious law will undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.” Both liberal and conservative foreign policy pragmatists warn that the President’s approach “fails to take into consideration the methodological approach many such [Islamist] parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. [and European] policy goals.” Again, think Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.³⁹ That is why Hillary Clinton warned in Geneva, that if Islamist parties seek to participate in the region’s future elections, “Political participation must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy.”⁴⁰ Playing by the rules of democracy, that is the big test. It is a test that has never been met by any Arab Muslim nation in the Middle East.

Finally, President Obama’s approach is one that will continue to dog him as he bumps up against the ideal of American exceptionalism in his own country. In the end, Obama’s foreign policy approach to the Arab-Muslim world will either end up backfiring against his intended hopes and desires, or as few believe, a wave of interfaith harmony among Sunni and Shiite Muslims will occur in their seeming quest for democracy and western democratic values. This latter scenario is not realistic or likely. Stay tuned for Part Two of this article series titled: “Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine: Interfaith Tolerance and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy.”

Gregory W. Hamilton is President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA). NRLA is a non-partisan government relations and legal mediation services program that champions religious freedom and human rights for all people and institutions of faith in the legislative, civic, judicial, academic, interfaith and corporate arenas in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

Read also: Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine (PART II): Interfaith Tolerance & the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. District Judge Ashley Royal late Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed by the gun rights organization GeorgiaCarry.org and the minister at the Baptist Tabernacle of Thomaston. Royal wrote that Georgia law did not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion or the Second Amendment guarantee of a right to bear arms.

Also on Monday, a north Georgia legislator filed a bill to remove the restriction on guns in places of worship. House Bill 54, filed by Rep. Bobby Franklin, R-Marietta, eliminates places of worship from the list of prohibited places.

Read the full article

Read the full article here and for the full transcript of the President’s statement read the White House press release.

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

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

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

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

[District spokesperson Elaine] Naleski says some students were offended at how others were wearing the religious symbol, but the ACLU disagrees with that reasoning. “The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right,” said Mark Silverstein, the ACLU Legal Director, in a statement sent out to the media.

Read the full article

EXCERPT:

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One glaring weaknesses of the modern law on religious freedom is that it turns a blind eye toward neutral rules with a disparate impact on members of minority groups. That is why Justice Scalia was wrong in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith to hold that a general ban on the use of peyote could apply with equal force to its use in religious rites by members of the Native American Church. The far better approach is to allow for an accommodation of its use in religious settings that need not extend to recreational use of the same drug. First Amendment speech cases often follow the same view. The state can punish the burning of draft cards and need not make an exception for draft protestors.

I regard this approach as too narrow for both religion and speech. So even if Hastings’ antidiscrimination norm is neutral on its face, its impact on a religious group is not. In dealing with associational freedoms generally, the Supreme Court has recognized that the ability to choose your members is critical to your ability to maintain group identity. I

LINK:  http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/28/religion-speech-legal-supreme-court-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html?boxes=financechannelforbes

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today praised Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for his record of support for church-state separation and expressed the hope that his replacement will hold similar views.

Stevens, the oldest member of the court, announced this morning that he will retire at the end of this term. President Barack Obama is expected to soon reveal his choice to replace Stevens.

“Justice Stevens is an icon — a thoughtful, perceptive justice who understands the role of church-state separation in American life,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It is vitally important that President Obama choose a high court nominee who understands that government may not meddle in matters of religion.

“The high court is deeply divided on church-state issues,” Lynn continued. “It is imperative that Stevens’ replacement be someone who understands and upholds the constitutional mandate of church-state separation.”

Lynn pointed out that Stevens voted consistently against efforts to interject religion into public schools and to funnel tax aid to sectarian schools. He opposed government display of sectarian symbols on public property. At the same time, he was an ardent supporter of the free exercise of religion.

In 2002, Stevens issued a strong dissent from the high court’s ruling upholding voucher subsidies for private schools in Cleveland, noting that most of the public funds went to religious institutions. (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris)

“Whenever we remove a brick from the wall that was designed to separate religion and government, we increase the risk of religious strife and weaken the foundations of our democracy,” Stevens wrote.

Lynn said Americans United will closely monitor the nomination process to ensure that Stevens’ replacement has the same regard for church-state separation.

Appointed by President Gerald R. Ford, Stevens has served on the Supreme Court since 1975.

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

WASHINGTON (ABP) — With the Supreme Court’s oldest and longest-serving member announcing April 9 his retirement, advocates for strong church-state separation urged that Justice John Paul Stevens’ replacement be as devoted to preventing government establishment of religion as the retiring jurist.

However, some called for a successor who can improve on what they view as Stevens’ mixed record when it comes to enforcing the other half of the First Amendment’s religion clauses — protecting the free exercise of faith.

“Justice Stevens is an icon — a thoughtful, perceptive justice who understands the role of church-state separation in American life,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a press release. “It is vitally important that President Obama choose a high-court nominee who understands that government may not meddle in matters of religion.”

Read the full article:  http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5032/53/

1. By Ellen G. White – The Great Controversy pp. 293-298

By Ellen G. White – The Great Controversy pp. 293-298

——————————————————————–
Eleven years after the planting of the first colony, Roger Williams came to the new World. Like the early Pilgrims, he came to enjoy religious freedom; but unlike them, he saw what so few in his time had yet seen—that this freedom was the inalienable right of all, whatever might be their creed. He was an earnest seeker for truth, with Robinson holding it impossible that all the light from God’s word had yet been received. Williams “was the first person in modern Christendom to establish civil government on the doctrine of the liberty of conscience, the equality of opinions before the law.” He declared it to be the duty of the magistrate to restrain crime, but never to control the conscience. “The public or the magistrates may decide,” he said, “what is due from man to man; but when they attempt to prescribe a man’s duties to God, they are out of place, and there can be no safety; for it is clear that if the magistrate has the power, he may decree one set of opinions or beliefs today and another tomorrow; as had been done in England by different kings and queens, and by different popes and councils in the Roman Church; so that belief would become a heap of confusion.”

Attendance at the services of the established church was required under a penalty of fine or imprisonment. “William’s reprobated the law; the worst statute in the English code was that which did but enforce attendance upon the parish church. To compel men to unite with those of a different creed, he regarded as an open violation of their natural rights; to drag to public worship the irreligious and the unwilling, seemed only like requiring hypocrisy. . . . ‘No one should be bound to worship, or,’ he added, ‘to maintain a worship, against his own consent.’ ‘What!’ exclaimed his antagonists, amazed at his tenets, ‘is not the laborer worthy of his hire?’ ‘Yes,’ replied he, ‘from them that hire him.’”

Roger Williams was respected and beloved as a faithful minister, a man of rare gifts, of unbending integrity and true benevolence; yet his steadfast denial of the right of civil magistrates to authority over the church, and his demand for religious liberty, could not be tolerated. The application of this new doctrine, it was urged, would “subvert the fundamental state and government of the country.” He was sentenced to banishment from the colonies, and finally, to avoid arrest, he was forced to flee, amid the cold and storms of winter, into the unbroken forest.

“For fourteen weeks,” he says, “I was sorely tossed in a bitter season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.” But “the ravens fed me in the wilderness,” and a hollow tree often served him for a shelter. Thus he continued his painful flight through the snow and the trackless forest, until he found refuge with an Indian tribe whose confidence and affection he had won while endeavoring to teach them the truths of the gospel.

Making his way at last, after months of change and wandering, to the shores of Narragansett Bay, he there laid the foundation of the first state of modern times that in the fullest sense recognized the right of religious freedom. The fundamental principle of Roger Williams’s colony, was “that every man should have liberty to worship God according to the light of his own conscience.” His little state, Rhode Island, became the asylum of the oppressed, and it increased and prospered until its foundation principles—civil and religious liberty—became the cornerstone of the American Republic.

In that grand old document which our forefathers set forth as their bill of rights—the Declaration of Independence—they declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And the Constitution guarantees, in the most explicit terms, the inviolability of conscience: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable.

“The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man’s relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable. Reasoning was not necessary to establish this truth; we are conscious of it in our own bosoms. It is this consciousness which, in defiance of human laws, has sustained so many martyrs in tortures and flames. They felt that their duty to God was superior to human enactments, and that man could exercise no authority over their consciences. It is an inborn principle which nothing can eradicate.”

As the tidings spread through the countries of Europe, of a land where every man might enjoy the fruit of his own labor and obey the convictions of his conscience, thousands flocked to the shores of the New World, Colonies rapidly multiplied. “Massachusetts, by special law, offered free welcome and aid, at the public cost, to Christians of any nationality who might fly beyond the Atlantic ‘to escape from wars or famine, or the oppression of their persecutors.’ Thus the fugitive and the downtrodden were, by statute, made the guests of the commonwealth.” In twenty years from the first landing at Plymouth, as many thousand Pilgrims were settled in New England.

To secure the object which they sought, “they were content to earn a bare subsistence by a life of frugality and toil. They asked nothing from the soil but the reasonable returns of their own labor. No golden vision threw a deceitful halo around their path. . . . They were content with the slow but steady progress of their social polity. They patiently endured the privations of the wilderness, watering the tree of liberty with their tears, and with the sweat of their brow, till it took deep root in the land.”

The Bible was held as the foundation of faith, the source of wisdom, and the charter of liberty. Its principles were diligently taught in the home, in the school, and in the church, and its fruits were manifest in thrift, intelligence, purity, and temperance. One might be for years a dweller in the Puritan settlements, “and not see a drunkard, or hear an oath, or meet a beggar.” It was demonstrated that the principles of the Bible are the surest safeguards of national greatness. The feeble and isolated colonies grew to a confederation of powerful States, and the world marked with wonder the peace and prosperity of “a church without a pope, and a state without a king.”

But continually increasing numbers were attracted to the shores of America, actuated by motives widely different from those of the first Pilgrims. Though the primitive faith and purity exerted a widespread and moulding power, yet its influence became less and less as the numbers increased of those who sought only worldly advantage.

The regulation adopted by the early colonists, of permitting only members of the church to vote or to hold office in the civil government, led to most pernicious results. This measure had been accepted as a means of preserving the purity of the state, but it resulted in the corruption of the church. A profession of religion being the condition of suffrage and office holding, many, actuated solely by motives of worldly policy, united with the church without a change of heart. Thus the churches came to consist, to a considerable extent, of unconverted persons; and even in the ministry were those who not only held errors of doctrine, but who were ignorant of the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. Thus again was demonstrated the evil results, so often witnessed in the history of the church from the days of Constantine to the present, of attempting to build up the church by the aid of the state, of appealing to the secular power in support of the gospel of Him who declared, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.

The union of the church with the state, be the degree never so slight, while it may appear to bring the world nearer to the church, does in reality but bring the church nearer to the world.

The great principle so nobly advocated by Robinson and Roger Williams, that truth is progressive, that Christians should stand ready to accept all the light which may shine from God’s holy Word, was lost sight of by their descendants. The Protestant churches of America and those of Europe as well—so highly favored in receiving the blessings of the Reformation, failed to press forward in the path of reform. Though a few faithful men arose, from time to time, to proclaim new truth and expose long cherished error, the majority, like the Jews in Christ’s day or the papists in the time of Luther, were content to believe as their fathers had believed, and to live as they had lived. Therefore religion again degenerated into formalism; and errors and superstitions which would have been cast aside had the church continued to walk in the light of God’s word, were retained and cherished. Thus the spirit inspired by the Reformation gradually died out, until there was almost as great need of reform in the Protestant churches as in the Roman Church in the time of Luther. There was the same worldliness and spiritual stupor, a similar reverence for the opinions of men, and substitution of human theories for the teachings of God’s word.

###

Ever since President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, the chattering classes have speculated endlessly regarding the impact she might have on the future of American jurisprudence.  She would bring wide-ranging experiences to the Court: prosecutor, civil litigator, federal trial judge, federal appellate judge, law school instructor, and Hispanic woman.  While not a Horatio Alger rags-to-riches success story, she comes pretty close.

As only the second Hispanic named to the Court, her views on race and ethnicity have naturally been of great interest to Court watchers, litigators, and the so-called fourth estate. In fact, for a time her “wise Latina” comments and the president’s equally controversial “empathy standard” were unwelcome distractions and fodder for sharp criticism. But the threatened firestorm turned out to be more a tempest in a teapot, and during the Senate confirmation hearings she conducted herself with aplomb, charm, and dignity, demonstrating not just a nuanced and sophisticated comprehension of the law but a judicial demeanor and temperament to be expected of one enrobed in the marble edifice at the entrance of which bears the inscription “Equal Justice Under Law.”

At the age of 55, she could potentially serve until 2044, should she serve as long as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (who served on the Court until the age of 90). Her relative youth, then, is one of the positive considerations that no doubt influenced her nomination.

Perhaps of somewhat lesser public interest, but of no less public importance, are Sotomayor’s views regarding the Constitution’s provisions generally and the safeguards concerning religious liberty specifically. Appellate judges exercise discretion in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, but are necessarily constrained by the binding precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1803 the judiciary has had final legal interpretive authority within our nation¹s system of government and the Supreme Court has reigned supreme over all courts regarding the laws of the land. As Chief Justice Marshall opined in Marbury v. Madison: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

Three provisions in the U.S. Constitution expressly reference religion, effectively presenting a triptych showcasing the New World’s commitment to freedom of conscience. One is in Article VI, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides in pertinent part that “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” While age and residency requirements may be prescribed for would-be officeholders, this “no religious test” clause clearly proscribes any religious criterion being applied. (In some jurisdictions in colonial America public office holders had to be of the Protestant faith.)

The other two religion provisions are situated in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This pair of clauses (free exercise clause and establishment clause) proved fertile soil from which has grown the vast body of intricate, if not convoluted, case law concerning religious liberty.

While Sotomayor’s past judicial experience never afforded her the opportunity to opine on the Article VI, Section 3 prohibition against religious tests for officeholders, she has adjudicated cases pertaining to the other two provisions.

A quartet of cases gives voice to her views regarding the religion clauses. Ford v. McGinnis, for example, involved an inmate in a state correctional facility who requested to be served an Eid ul Fitr meal for observance of the Muslim Festival of Breaking the Fast. He wanted to participate in the daylong celebration at the conclusion of Ramadan, which is a holy month of fasting and prayer for Muslims. The prisoner had to be transferred from Rikers Island to the Downstate Correctional Facility for a court appearance on January 7, 2000, which was the very day for partaking of the Eid ul Fitr meal and so was unable to participate at the prescribed time.

Prison officials learned that most Muslims would not observe the feast at a time other than at the appointed time, and so they informed the inmate that no such makeup feast would take place given the generally accepted dictates of Islam. The prisoner in question begged to differ and filed a lawsuit.

The timing of the suit may not have been ideal for the litigant, who filed after the Religious Freedom Restoration Act had been invalidated by the Supreme Court (at least to the extent that it applied to the states) but before the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act was passed by Congress. It afforded, however, the appellate court the occasion to decide the issue squarely on the Constitution, not on interpretations of federal statutes.

A federal trial court had affirmed the decision of the prison not to serve the meal at all since by conventional Muslim standards it would have been too late. By the time Sotomayor heard the case, she was a federal appellate judge serving on the Second Circuit. Writing for the panel, she opined that the appellate court would decline to assess the “objective reasonableness of the prisoner’s belief” and would ask rather the more focused and individualized questions of whether “a claimant sincerely holds a particular belief and whether the belief is religious in nature.”

This was because judges, though learned in the law, did not have the “aptitude to pass upon the question of whether particular religious beliefs are wrong or right.” The decision served a didactic purpose, signaling that courts would look to the sincerely held beliefs of the individual adherent party to the litigation, not solely to whether the belief was an official creed or a “tenet or dogma of an established religious sect.” No group would determine for the individual what the individual in question believed.

Not a favorite of correctional facility wardens, the case made clear that the Constitution’s guarantees afforded substantive rights, not easily dismissed, and certainly not diminished due to the idiosyncratic religious beliefs of the individual asserting the rights.

The case of Flamer v. City of  White Plains was a suit by Rabbi Reuven Flamer, a Hasidic Lubavitcher Jew, who requested to erect a menorah, a nine-pronged candelabrum, in a city park. He was precluded from so doing by a city council resolution, supported by Reform Jews, prohibiting fixed outdoor displays of religious or political symbols in government parks. The rabbi asserted his constitutional rights to free exercise of religion and to free speech and argued that the city resolution was unconstitutional.

Sotomayor, then serving as a federal trial judge, struck down the resolution as an unconstitutional content-based regulation of speech. A hybrid case involving two First Amendment protections (speech and religion), Flamer is seen as a victory for proponents of unfettered religious speech. Why should religious speech be accorded less protection than secular speech? After all, freedom of religion is expressly protected and, therefore, religious speech should for that very reason be accorded more, rather than less, protection.

At the same time, however, there are those of a sincerely religious orientation who equally revere the Constitution who are less than completely comfortable with the decision. For them, the Constitution precludes use of government property for such religious expression. The establishment clause is not just about disestablishing churches but about preventing the perception of government endorsement of a particular faith. The case is not just a skirmish between conservative Hasidic Lubavitcher Jews and progressive Reform Jews; it also reveals the inherent tensions between the establishment clause and free exercise clause.

Judge Sotomayor, with the deft hand of a judicial maven, identified the relevant facts and applied the legal precedent. After describing the distinctions between a traditional public forum, a nonpublic forum, and a designated public forum, she permitted the expressive action of erecting the menorah, vindicating the right to religious speech in a forum in which no one would mistake the menorah for government speech. No doubt the case would have been decided the same way whether the display entailed the Ten Commandments, a crescent, or a crèche.

Campos v. Coughlin is a third case that can serve as a window on Sotomayor¹s approach to religious freedom issues. Campos also involved incarcerated individuals, self-described adherents of the Santeria religion, though some had previously identified themselves as Christians. What makes this case interesting was not just that the believers were prisoners or that they insisted that they had a right to wear multiple strands of beads; it is important because while such a devotional practice may have been officially optional for Santeria practitioners, it was not optional to the petitioners in question. If the state denied their request for accommodation, the denial could, in their minds, “result in negative and possibly irreversible life consequences for the practitioner.”

In deciding the case Judge Sotomayor upheld their claim, holding that an accommodation was constitutionally required. State corrections administrators, while ever mindful of prison safety and security concerns, were no less responsible as government actors for complying with the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. The right is not absolute and admits of caveats, qualifications, and limitations. But on balance the religious freedoms guaranteed to the prisoners outweighed concerns that the beads might identify prison gang membership (a genuine, nontrivial concern of the warden).

Hankins v. Lyght was a case in which an elderly Protestant minister filed suit against his denomination’s implementation of mandatory age-based retirement. Though he loved his church, he hated what in his mind was its thinly veiled ageism. In this case Judge Sotomayor parted company with the majority and filed a dissent.

She argued that the federal age discrimination in employment statute was inapplicable to a church’s hiring, retention, and employment practices, for to hold otherwise would unduly intrude into matters (of faith) regarding which courts had no competence. Court involvement in a church¹s mandatory retirement dispute would be to trespass on “spiritually intimate grounds of a religious community’s existence.”

With due deference to applicable precedent, she explained her reasons for dissenting. One might infer from her dissenting opinion a profound respect for religious institutions and their faith-informed internal operations. The right to believe belongs not just to an individual but to an aggregate of individuals, and government should studiously avoid becoming embroiled in internecine struggles over religious questions between believers and their communities.

These four cases stand for the constancy of the Constitution. They reveal Sotomayor’s judicial leitmotif of upholding constitutional rights not just in trouble-free circumstances but even under challenging conditions. The Constitution guides the ship of state not just in tranquil waters but even, and perhaps especially, in the Sturm und Drang of the perfect legal storm.

While it might be an exaggeration to call her opinions illuminating, learned, and lucid, it’s not much of an exaggeration. Her published opinions exhibit the painstaking and proficient habits of a judge who is fairly even-tempered, passionate about being dispassionate, and decidedly mainstream. She is not, at least on the religion clauses, an ideologue with a doctrinal ax to grind. Her opinions avoid courting the avant-garde; instead, they are closely reasoned and meticulously written with the fidelity to statutes and studious attention to precedent expected of a neutral adjudicator. Noncontroversial is an apt description of her judicial oeuvre‹and perhaps this is precisely what the president wanted.

These are not the only opinions that evince recently confirmed Justice Sotomayor’s religious liberty jurisprudence. Professor Howard M. Friedman has compiled an extensive list of Sotomayor’s rulings on religion clause issues at his blog, Religion Clause.

Some groups criticize Sotomayor’s jurisprudence as being merely comme ci, comme ça (so-so) or rather moderately tolerable. Others find her to be―for good or for ill―a rather “strict church-state separationist.” Still others laud her as a brilliant jurist.

According to the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, an organization noted for its strict church-state separation, Sotomayor upholds religious “free exercise―even in difficult settings such as prisons and in cases where the religious practices of plaintiffs are unfamiliar,” and “where the governing case law was not settled, she accurately predicted the Supreme Court’s eventual resolution.”

Dan Gilgoff, writing in his God & Country blog for U.S. News and World Report, found Sotomayor’s religion clause cases so middle-of-the-road that he predicted the White House might even focus on them to garner support among religious conservatives.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a traditional values counterpart to the liberal ACLU, doubtless would have preferred a nominee more in the conservative mold of Justice Scalia. But its decision not to actively oppose Sotomayor’s confirmation and to rather generically indicate that it “stands firmly behind the appointment of judges who will interpret the law, rather than legislate policy” is telling.

While the U.S. Senate fully inquired into Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, one thing it properly declined to do was inquire into “her own religious faith.” While it is common knowledge that she is a practicing Catholic Christian (and will constitute the sixth Catholic on the nine-member Court), her prayers, devotional practices, and personal theology are not pertinent to her qualifications for the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a line of questioning could be tantamount to a violation of the “no religious test” provision of the Constitution.

In conclusion, if Justice Sotomayor’s past writings are any indication, her future religion clause opinions should please First Amendment advocates, especially those for whom religious liberty is vital.
 

David A. Pendleton, a former legislator, adjudicates workers compensation appeals in Honolulu, Hawaii.

 Although ReligiousLiberty.TV is not affiliated with Liberty Magazine, we strongly support the magazine and are pleased that the magazine and the author have granted us permission to repost this informative article about the views of the newest Justice on the United States Supreme Court on the intersection of church and state.  If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing (it is only $7.95 a year) or contributing to further the mission of the magazine.  RLTV Editor

Our best example might come from a time when much of Europe was a “Christian Continent.”   The Holy Roman Empire lasted from Emperor Otto’s coronation in 962 to 1806 when it was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars. For all intents and purposes it was considered the ultimate “Christian” political system.

The Empire was afraid what would happen if people began to compare the activities of its political and religious leaders with the Bible. There was tremendous power in the idea that a political leader could advance policies, not through debate, but by virtue that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”  To put this in perspective, imagine that President Obama could win the healthcare debate by simply saying that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”

Around 1419, John Huss began to speak against some of the customs of the Church, and because the Empire and the Church were so closely aligned, they spent a lot of energy trying to silence the “heresy.” The Empire was threatened because if Huss won the debate, he would show that the Church could be challenged and if the Church could be challenged, then it threatened the Empire itself, which based its power on the idea that God considered the Empire to be correct on all issues.

When people heard what Huss was saying, they began to doubt their old idea of a unified corpus Christianum and consider that people did not have to agree on everything when it came to faith.  A century later, in 1517, Martin Luther initiated the Reformation in an attempt to bring the Church around to his ideas.  People ended up siding with Luther or against him along geographic lines and Germany was split along these lines from which it never fully recovered until the Empire dissolved.

Added to this was the fact that popes and emperors tended to distrust each other, and felt that they had to fight to remain in control of the situation.

Many people believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the formation of a “state church” such as the Church of England.  While there are good reasons to believe that this was intended to be much broader, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Congress would still be free to declare that Christianity is the official religion of the country and that our laws were supposed to mirror God’s law.

Christianity has struggled with issues of power and control since its inception.  Throughout Jesus’ ministry, His disciples often asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest among us?”

They probably thought that Jesus would name John or Peter or Mathew and make this honored disciple a Vice President of the Kingdom.  But Jesus turned their question upside down.  

In Matthew 18 we read His answer. “Jesus called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV).

In recent months as I’ve read various calls for America to be declared a Christian nation, I’ve been surprised at some of the language used.  Tom Snyder on World Net Daily said that the idea of separation of church and state is promoted by “theophobic atheists, neo-pagan fascists, radical liberals, socialists, Marxists, anti-Christian bigots, sexual perverts, Christophobic politicians and journalists, and other such people who wish to obliterate the European Christian foundation on which America was built.”  See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45069

Snyder concludes that, “separation of church and state does not mean separation between politics and religion or politics and the Bible. As Gary DeMar points out, there is a big difference between an ‘ecclesiocracy’ where the church rules society through religious leaders with preachers and priests as the government officials, and a ‘theocracy’ where God rules the outward behavior of all people through the civil government chosen by the people. Thus, the Founding Fathers did indeed establish a Christian theocracy, but they did not establish a Christian ecclesiocracy.”

But who will tell us how God would rule the “outward behavior of all people”? Would some people claim to be closer to God and that they could tell everybody else how to live out their faith in their everyday lives? 

History tells us that it would not be a debate between Christians and atheists.  If Christianity won predominance over every other religious system in the nation, it would be a debate between Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentacostals, and any other denomination you could name. Then it would be between the liberals and conservatives, and ultimately between conservatives or between liberals, the powerful – not the faithful – would control.

People interpret faith differently, and while most people think they believe the right thing, history tells us what to predict what would happen if one person’s right thing and the other person’s right thing were in disagreement.   Anybody who has served on a church board can tell you how much debate goes on about the smallest issues – churches have split over the color of carpet, whether somebody could play a guitar in church, or whether a woman can make an announcement in front.  Even the Protestants in Europe during the Reformation went to war and killed each other over whether the Eucharist was really the body and blood of Christ.

If America were declared a Christian nation, would this tendency to fight over the smallest differences in faith change? Would churches that uphold traditional marriage gain power over those who performed same-sex marriages? Would those who view national healthcare as a Godly objective fight with those who found problems with it? Would the liberal churches or conservative churches dominate the landscape? 

And what about those who were not Christian? Would they find themselves pressured to convert or face losing their rights to hold office, vote, or even own property?

Looking at history, the only way the idea of a “Christian America” that is envisioned would ever be able to “succeed” is by seeking power, suppressing dissent, and persecuting those who disagreed.  It might not follow a particular denomination, but because Christianity itself is so diverse there would need to be a central core of beliefs. There might be a few “true believers” who would carry their message forward without feeling upset by this change, but the majority of the people, including most Christians, would live in constant fear and frustration.

In an age when many Christian conservatives argue that the government cannot properly handle the issue of health care, many of the same people seem to have confidence in the government’s ability to handle matters of faith.  For that reason alone, separation of church and state should be a conservative cause. Religion does best when it stands on its own two feet and does not rely on the crutch of government.  Just as conservatives argue those who receive a lifetime of government funding cannot handle the open market, they should recognize that once churches depend on government “marketing” they will cease to be as productive.

 After a thousand years of religious leadership, the former Holy Roman Empire is now one of the most secular places on the globe. People look at churches as irrelevant antiques. And many government-funded churches in Europe are dying on the vine. This was because religion depended on the government and when the government pulled back, religion folded. If Americans want faith to thrive, it should grow on its own – not be stifled or forced by government. Faith does not need a government handout or increased bureaucratic overhead that would inevitably result.  Imagine if churches were run like the DMV!

This is not to say that there aren’t times when churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations can’t partner with government for humanitarian purposes, but rather that the government should stay out of matters of faith and doctrine.

Rather than seeking power in order to turn the United States into a Christian Empire, it would be better for individual Christians and churches to follow Jesus’ words, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV). The best way to grow Christianity is not through achieving power but through caring acts of kindness and mercy. Evangelical Christians should not seek to become a Christian nation, but they can seek to be a nation of Christians who have been attracted to Christ through their faith and freely chosen to follow Him. If Christians must rely on the power of government to increase their impact on the world, they are doing something very wrong.

Declaring that this is a “Christian Nation” would not make America better – it would make America a nation of robots and would misrepresent the freedom that faith can bring.  America should be a nation where people can choose their own faith and not have to be afraid that they will be marginalized or at a disadvantage when it comes to how their government treats them. America is a big place, and is definitely big enough for all peaceful people of faith as well as those who choose not to follow any faith. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.