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

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

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

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

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

Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

As a pastor’s kid growing up in the Adventist church, every thirteenth Sabbath was a special day. I was not actually interested in communion itself, given that I did not participate before my baptism, and I had heard my father tell the story of the Lord’s Supper so frequently that my brother and I would often recite, “Let us now eat together!” while snacking at home. Instead, I was excited about the fifteen minute break just before the sermon, when adults would wash each others feet.

I remember loving that part of the service, often called the ordinance of humility, because it meant I could have fun with my friends in the sanctuary, while my parents and others went off to the beige side rooms to play with hand towels and shallow water tubs. While there was always a general warning to be quiet and remain reverent during this time, we rarely listened. Talking loudly during church often led me into trouble—my dad once stopped a sermon half way through and told me to get up and sit on the other side of the sanctuary.

Now that I’m older, that quarter hour remains my favorite part of church but for a different reason. Today, I join the other grownups in the Sabbath School rooms and participate. As I grew up, and once I started at PUC, I really enjoyed and appreciated the symbolic significance of foot-washing—an act of humility and service based on Christ’s own example.

During Sabbaths at the college church in Angwin or the Elmshaven Church in St. Helena, I would partner with a friend or classmate, but no matter how well I knew them, it was always pretty uncomfortable. Unless you work as a podiatrist or a pedicurist, there is nothing else like foot-washing, no other moment in life when we stoop down to clean another person’s toes and heels, so often the dirtiest part of the body. Most of my closest friends at PUC were basketball players, including my roommate, who spent half the week expelling liters of sweat from their pruny feet into their socks and sneakers.

After I graduated from PUC, and there wasn’t always a close friend with whom to participate, foot-washing became a spiritual adventure. Foot-washing with a stranger was incredibly awkward, or at least it was at first. There are few comfortable conversation topics to engage in while peeling back the dress sock off an elderly man’s foot and handling his callused toes. It’s not appropriate to discuss sports, since we’re in church and everyone around us is humming hymns and praying. We usually chat about the weather or talk about our mutual acquaintance in the fourth pew. While the state of some feet and certain odors might not be too pleasant, some are downright ugly; the ritual itself is incredibly beautiful. I am reminded of both Christ washing our sins away and the spiritual importance of serving the elderly and helping others. It makes me sad when I see how many people skip out on this opportunity because of feelings of embarrassment. I won’t argue that the process isn’t uncomfortable; however, there is incredible value in such discomfort. The words of Christ—turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, rejecting the ways of the world—are not supposed to be an easy set of  instructions.

Years later, my roommate from PUC would be the first person whose feet I washed after the sudden death of my father, a man who had washed my own feet several times, and the emotions of that moment nearly brought me to tears. So for a few embarrassing, quiet minutes every thirteenth Sabbath, surrounded by children’s Sabbath school felts, I awkwardly pick the lint from in-between someone’s toes, and I get to experience a bond with that person unlike anything I have experienced in church or anywhere else. By the end of it, I am proud and honored when the elderly gentleman, who was a stranger to me only minutes before, stands up, straightens his pressed suit pants, prays with me, shakes my hand, and calls me “Brother Martin.”

This article will appear as “My ViewPoint” in the Spring 2012 issue of Pacific Union College’s ViewPoint Magazine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

We talk about “haters” so much these days, and the picture of haters that always jumps to my mind are these people who you’re not really close to, or acquaintances who see all that you have and are just jealous. But the truth is that your real enemies are always close friends and family. When we look at the example of Jacob and Laban in Gen 31 we see an uncle and a nephew, a father-in-law and a son-in-law at odds with each other. In 1 Sam 24, we have a mentor and a mentee, as well as a father-in-law and a son-in- law at odds with each other in Saul and David. The animosity between Jesus and Judas is told to us in Matt 26. Of course this is Jesus with one of the 12 people he shared his ministry with. How quick we are to forsake the love we once had switch to hate.

Jason Hines is Associate Editor for ReligiousLiberty.TV. 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. He originally published this article on his blog, Hinesight. 

This was the case of the parochial school teacher who in addition to teaching on secular subjects also performed religious functions, Cheryl Perich, who was fired for threatening to file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disaiblities Act when she was not given her job back after returning from medical leave.  The religious employer argued that it was against its religious beliefs for a minister to sue the church, and that these things had to be handled within the church structure.

The issue presented before the Court was whether the anti-retaliation prohibition of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be constitutionally applied to a religious association’s retaliatory firing of a parochial school teacher who taught secular subjects and also performed religious functions and was designated a commissioned minister.

The Supreme Court found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar ministers from bringing lawsuits against their churches in which the ministers claim violation of employment discrimination laws. In this case, the Court found that Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, and therefore the First Amendment required dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.

The ministerial exception gives religious institutions certain rights to control employment matters without interference from the secular courts. It does not, as the Court decision points out, affect criminal, tort, or contract law. So churches cannot use it to shield themselves from liability for criminal acts, negligent behavior leading to accidents, or breach of contract.  But it does protect churches from being hauled into court for religious decisions that have been made.

Some have tried to advance the theory that Perich had not fully pursued the administrative remedies available to her in the parochial system, but that would not have changed the outcome which hinged on the threshold issue of whether the ministerial exception applied to her. If the exception applied, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Another misconception is that the Hosanna-Tabor decision somehow establishes the ministerial exception and adds something new. In reality, Congress specifically built an exception for religious organizations into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII was enacted by Congress to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S. C. §§ 2000e-2(a)). Under the statutory exception, religious employers could prefer members of their own faith in making their hiring decisions.

The actual ministerial exception was born in 1972, when, in McClure v. Salvation Army, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to hear a female minister’s gender discrimination claim. The court found that applying the provisions of Title VII to the employment relationship existing between a church and its ministers would therefore “cause the State to intrude upon matters of church administration and government” which would “result in an encroachment by the State into an area of religious freedom.”

The way it works is that courts in most Circuits rely upon a role-based or “primary duties test” to determine whether an employee is a minister within the exception, and whether or he she can bring suit under Title VII. Several circuits have adopted an approach that religious institutions should be able to choose who will perform certain spiritual functions. The first approach focuses on the employment relationship, while the second focuses on the right of churches to exercise their beliefs more freely.

Perich was, in many ways, the perfect “poster child” to challenge the ministerial exception. The case clearly involved a non-religious issue and for all the world, it looked like the church was looking for a way to fire her in a way that would be against public policy as applied to secular organizations and still avoid being hauled into court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In fact, the EEOC, the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (“AU”) rallied to Perich’s side. In its brief, AU argued that the ministerial exception did not entitle religious entities to discriminate or retaliate for reasons unrelated to religion, and that courts should determine whether an asserted religious justification for an action is pretextual.

In short, a church would therefore need to pass a two-prong test – first, it would have to demonstrate that its discriminatory rule was related to its religious beliefs; second, it would need to demonstrate that its action was not “pretextual.”

The AU brief gave some examples of what it meant to litigate on issues of discrimination that were not particularly related to a church’s doctrine. For instance, a Catholic Church could not be forced to hire a female priest, but an otherwise egalitarian church would not be permitted to fire a Sunday-school teacher when the pastor had a purely personal belief that “women should not work outside the home.”  The examples continued for several pages, permitting organizations to make discriminatory doctrinal rulings but not permitting local churches from acting in contrast to non-discriminatory denominational policies or practice.

Applying an Employment Division v. Smith style argument, AU argued that generally applicable employment laws should apply to churches unless there is a need to safeguard a constitutional right. Why they would appeal to this analysis is particularly curious. The Smith decision created a major problem for free exercise of religion by subjecting religious minorities to the rule of the majority even if it goes against the minority’s religious beliefs. (One can hope that the Court, in the near future, might see the wisdom of applying the Hosanna-Tabor analysis to individual religious liberty rights and re-establishing the Free Exercise Clause that was compromised in Smith.)

The AU brief is helpful in that it provides a concrete example of the depth to which the government and courts would need evaluate in order to determine whether church employment decisions were permissible or not.

Under the approach proposed by AU, church decisions would be open to scrutiny as to whether they were doctrinal or not, and the investigators would then need to go into the minds of the decision makers to see whether such decisions were made in good faith and not merely to achieve a favorable outcome for the institution.

As people often say, bad cases often make bad law and the Supreme Court had just such an opportunity to throw away the ministerial exception in this highly sympathetic case and effectively destroy the wall of separation of church and state by allowing the state entry into the inner workings of the church. Fortunately the Court saw the bigger issues involved and made the right decision.

However by ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.

Church leaders are free to choose ministers who they believe will carry their message forward.

While most religious organizations sincerely strive to provide fair and equitable treatment to all employees, this does not mean that some religious organizations will not abuse the “ministerial exception” to make poor personnel decisions that could lead to costly litigation if they were secular organizations. But organizational decision makes should realize that they will ultimately answer to a Higher Power even if these cases may not be pursued in the civil courts.

—-

For more information on the ministerial exception and its history, I would recommend the Charleston Law Review article by Todd Cole, “The Ministerial Exception:  Resolving the Conflict between Title VII and the First Amendment.” The article is available online at http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Cole.pdf

I’ve learned a few things since my teenage days of obsession with conspiracy theories. First, I’ve learned that some of what I believed back then could be true. But secondly, I’ve come to the conclusion that it probably makes very little practical difference in my life or in the life of anyone else whether these conspiracy theories are actually true.

Most grand conspiracy theories are based on a great deal of speculation.

A lot of the information that these theories are based on is conjecture and only circumstantial evidence. One thing is certain, these theories are not based on the Bible, for the Bible says nothing about the Jesuits or the Illuminati and nothing about them controlling the world.

In fact, the Bible specifically tells us to avoid myths and questions that engender strife (i.e., questions about speculative issues). Paul writes, “But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.” (Titus 3:9, emphasis mine). “…Nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith.” (1 Timothy 1:4). Almost every grand-scale conspiracy theory fits what these verses are talking about.

But let’s say that we could prove without a doubt that the world is controlled by the Illuminati. As a Christian, what practical difference would that make in my life or your life? Would we go into hiding? Try to assassinate those evil leaders? Do our best to expose their evil plans?

Or would we keep doing what we’re supposed to be doing anyway – loving our enemies like Jesus tells us to do, praying for evil doers and spreading the gospel?

Ultimately, grand conspiracy theories lead to an unhealthy fascination with things that are less than certain and direct our attention away from loving our enemies as Jesus told us to do.

Conspiracy theories give evil people too much credit and attribute too much power to them.

Think about it: conspiracy theories give a lot of credit to evil men, teaching that evil men – most of them 33rd degree Freemasons or members of the Illuminati – are controlling the world. Really? Is that what the Bible teaches? Not exactly.

In fact, the Bible teaches that God is the one who controls the affairs of the governments of this world; He is the one who determines who will rule the world – not a bunch of evil men.

Notice what the Bible says:

“And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding…” Daniel 2:21.

“For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another.” Psalm 75:6-7.

So the Bible says that God, not any group of evil men, is responsible for who comes to power in our world. To give evil men the credit goes directly against what the Bible teaches.

Additionally, focusing on the supposed power of a bunch of 33rd degree Masons somewhere ultimately leads us to exalt these evil men to a demigod status with power akin to that of God himself.

Conspiracy theories about the government and church leadership cause us to distrust God-appointed authorities.

Granted, some leaders are unquestionably evil. A good example is the Emperor Nero who lived during Paul’s time. Yet, do we see Paul railing on Nero’s evilness? Hardly. In fact, we hear nothing from Paul that could be construed as disrespect toward Nero. Paul had bigger fish to fry, namely the salvation of people’s souls. What Nero did was largely irrelevant to the grander scheme of things and Paul knew that.

In Romans 13 the Bible calls the civil authorities “ministers of God” appointed by Him to keep the peace. Paul also commands that Christians should respect and “honor” the authorities to the extent that we can do so without disobeying God (see Romans 13:1-7 and Acts 5:29).

Conspiracy theories teach the opposite. Instead of respecting civil authorities, conspiracy theories teach that these men should be, at the least, distrusted and that they are not the “ministers of God” but are rather the ministers of Satan. Those embracing these theories would do well to heed the example of David when his men encouraged him to take the life of King Saul in the cave (see 1 Samuel 24:10). There, instead of taking the life of the evil king who was pursuing him, David refused to lay a hand upon the “Lord’s anointed” and instead showed respect to this evil man and spared his life.

By embracing conspiracy theories Christians are led to engage in slander and bear false witness against their neighbor.

As noted above, some leaders are undeniably evil and others are open and avowed enemies of God and his people. To state these objective facts about such an individual is not slanderous. However, to speculate and say that a certain government leader is a member of the Illuminati when there is less than certain proof that such is the case is to bear false witness against that person and to slander them.

Bearing false witness against our neighbor is sin (Exodus 20:16). Furthermore, the Bible tells us to speak about things that will build each other up (“edify”) and stop speaking about the things that tear others down. “Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” Eph. 4:29-32.

Notice how serious of a sin in God’s sight is the sin of evil speaking – Paul tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit by engaging in it!

Focusing on conspiracy theories takes our eyes off of Jesus and will cause us to be deceived at the end of time.

The Bible teaches a principle of natural law: by beholding we become changed (see 2 Cor. 3:18). If we look at something long enough, if we think about an idea intently enough, that thing, person or idea begins to have an effect on us. (Think about those stories of cops tasked with infiltrating a criminal organization only to become “dirty” themselves. That which was surrounding them began to affect them). If we feast long enough on conspiracy theories and the evils they encompass there is a danger that we will become enamored with evil and take our focus off of Jesus.

Instead, we ought to be focusing on Jesus. “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us” (1 John 3:1). ”Behold” (focus on; think about) the love of God, John says, not the bad actions of evil people in this world.

Notice what Ellen White had to say about focusing on what she calls the seductive arts of Satan:

“Give the people present truth. Talk the truth. Fill their minds with truth. Build up the strongholds of truth. And do not bring Satan’s theories to minds that should not hear in regard to them. What the people need is not a representation of the seductive arts of Satan, but a presentation of the truth as it is in Jesus. Remember that the devil can be served by a repetition of his lies. The less we handle these objectionable subjects, the purer, cleaner, and less tainted will be our minds and our principles….” Evangelism, p. 624, emphasis mine.

Finally, Ellen White notes, “Resolve never, never to repeat error, but always to teach the truth. Fill hearts and minds with the solemn, sacred truth for this time.” Evangelism, p. 623.

The end-time movement to enforce worship is a democratic movement, not top secret behind-the-scenes maneuvering by a few politicians.

Ultimately, there is one grand conspiracy theory that is true. That conspiracy theory is that Satan, the master deceiver and enemy of all that is good, is conspiring with and using sinful men to overthrow God and His people. The last book of the Bible details Satan’s titanic struggle with Christ to overthrow God’s government in the universe. That struggle will culminate in the Battle of Armageddon – the last battle between Christ and Satan. Satan will ultimately lose the war.

The Bible gives us some clues as to who Satan will use and conspire with at the end of time. First, there is the Antichrist power, a human organization, also referred to as the “Beast” in Revelation 13. Then there is a second “Beast” in Revelation 13 – referring to a nation that the devil works through to control the world at the end of time. Through both of these powers Satan will seek to defeat God and His end-time people.

Surprisingly to some, the end time movements to enact and enforce laws leading to the biblical “Mark of the Beast” will not be stealth movements based on secret conspiracies. In fact, they will be very public and enacted by a democratic society and due to the popular demand of the citizens of that society. Notice that the second beast of Revelation 13 says “to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.” Revelation 13:14, emphasis mine. As Ellen White notes, this action denotes a grassroots-based, democratic movement that eventually leads to the enacting of laws that result in the Mark of the Beast. (“…Rulers and legislators, in order to secure public favor, will yield to the popular demand for a law enforcing Sunday observance.” The Great Controversy, p. 592.). According to Revelation, it’s the people who are pulling the strings at the end of time – not a few evil members of the Illuminati in a smoke-filled room somewhere.

Quite contrary to this, most conspiracy theories about the end of time teach that a few evil men are plotting to spring laws on the United States or the world and that one day we will suddenly wake up to a dictatorship that has been going on all along behind the scenes without our knowledge (kind of like the Matrix?).

The Bible tells us what we need to know and do to stand through the end of time. One thing we should not be doing is closely studying into conspiracy theories that are speculative and based on theories of men. Instead, we should put on the full spiritual armor of God so that we can stand against the ultimate conspirator – the devil himself.

Notice what Paul says we should be doing so that we can “stand” in the evil day: “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Eph. 6:10-17.

(I am indebted to a paper written by Pastor Lary Brown, president of the Sri Lanka Mission of Seventh-day Adventists, which inspired some of the thoughts expressed here).

(This article was originally published on Steve Allred’s blog in July 2011 at http://sacredconscience.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-problem-i-have-with-conspiracy-theories/)

—

Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and is finishing his law degree. He writes about liberty of conscience and social justice at www.sacredconscience.com

I have some friends who tell me that I don’t make sense when it comes to my position on separation of church and state. You see, some would call me a “fundamentalist” Christian. For example, I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and try to live my life by its teachings. I believe that God created the world in seven, literal, twenty-four hour days and rested on the seventh day. I believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and that He is the divine Son of God. I also believe that marriage between a man and a woman is the biblical ideal and that any extra-martial sexual relationship is called sin in the Bible. Ultimately, I believe that the lifestyle that God describes in the Bible is the best and happiest way for me to live.

But here’s the rub: I also believe in keeping church and state separate. Some of my friends can’t understand why. To them, it’s a contradiction of my other beliefs. “If you believe that the Bible teaches that extra-marital sex is wrong, why don’t you believe that it should be outlawed in America?” they ask.

Because not every teaching of the Bible should necessarily be the law of the land. And because even though I may believe that living by God’s principles is the best way to live I shouldn’t want to force that lifestyle on others around me.

True, there was a time when laws of the Bible were the law of the land. In the Old Testament, the laws of God were enforced on the nation of Israel. But that was in a time when God ruled directly through kings and prophets in what we call a theocracy. By the time Jesus arrived, however, He made it clear that the theocracy was over: “My kingdom is not of this world.”, He said, “if it were, my servants would fight… but now my kingdom is not from here.” (John 18:36).

How much clearer could He be? He did make it even clearer, however, when He told us that Caesar’s (the secular government) realm and God’s (the church) realm on earth were explicitly separate: “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:21-22). In other words, God doesn’t need Caesar’s help to do His work.

And so, while I’m a fundamentalist, I’m also a separatist. I believe that church and state ought to be separate, because Jesus told us so, in so many words.

But why?

Way back in the Garden of Eden God gave us a clue. In a perfect world, where God ruled and where there was no sin, God gave us a choice – the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why the tree? Because God is love; love cannot exist without freedom to not love, therefore God must allow choice.

But just because God doesn’t want His religion forced on society doesn’t mean that there is no place for promoting morality and faith in the public marketplace. Far from it. In fact, the whole purpose of the church’s existence is to be the light of the world, the body of Christ, the salt of the earth. (Which is one reason I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech right along with separation of church and state. Yay for the First Amendment!). We are to be the voice calling out to individuals to experience a new way of life by accepting the principles of the kingdom of God. The church is the voice in the world upholding the Ten Commandments in our teachings and living them out in our own lives. We are the voice in society that teaches the truth boldly and unapologetically. And when the church fails in its job to promote obedience to God’s law in society, society begins to fall apart and the inevitable result is the reign of secularism and immorality (see, for example, The Great Controversy, p. 585-586). What should the church do then? We should repent for failing to do our divinely ordained job and pray for a revival within our midst so that we can be the light of the world once again.

Sadly, our response throughout history has been just the opposite. Instead of repenting and seeking God when society is experiencing moral decay, the church has turned to the secular government to enforce its dogmas and to “revive” society. But can laws legislating morality and religion really bring about revival? No. History tells us that laws never have brought about revival, and they never will. Only the power of the Holy Spirit, working through the church can truly bring revival. And one thing is clear: the Spirit doesn’t need the government’s help to make the church the light of the world! (In fact, it seems that in places where the government is persecuting God’s church the church shines brighter than ever).

Unfortunately, even though some Christians understand the church’s role, they still think that it is the government’s job to also be the moral conscience of society. Or they believe that the government should be just another “arm” of the church. But they’ve got it wrong. It’s the church’s job – and the church’s alone – to be Christ’s body on this earth. And the church should do its job without whining that it needs the government’s help or that it needs to use the government to do its job. In fact, the less help the government gives the church, the more glory is given to God when society is actually changed one person at a time. Because ultimately spiritual and moral change come from within – not from outward conformity to certain laws. Only God – not legislation – can transform the heart.

As I talk with my friends, I realize that my explanations still leave some unanswered questions: what kind of relationship should the church have with the government – any at all? When should the government step in and enforce “morals” on society – should it ever? The answers to these and other related questions are complex and anything but “hard and fast” and are for another discussion. Ultimately, though, we as Christians can thank God that He has made one thing exceedingly clear: our commission is to “preach the gospel to every creature.” One other thing He made clear is that the gospel of the kingdom is not to be preached by His servants fighting with the sword (earthly government) but rather, as the old Hymn “Lead on, O King Eternal” says, it is “with deeds of love and mercy” that the heavenly kingdom comes.

——————–

Steve Allred is an associate pastor at the Sacramento Central Seventh-day Adventist Church and law student at University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law.  This article originally appeared at Pastor Allred’s blog and is reprinted here with the permission of the author.

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we focus on a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. I feel bad calling this a weekly blog when my new posts are so infrequent and rarely uploaded every week, but starting this week it will be a regular feature every seven days or so. This time our focus is once again on Pakistan, where Christians across the country continue to be persecuted, violently attacked and even discriminated against in the midst of a humanitarian disaster zone.

Earlier this year, back in January, Article18 profiled Pakistan, focusing on how the fallout from Governor Taseer’s assassination disrupted efforts to eliminate discriminatory blasphemy laws. Since then little has improved for a nation still struggling to convince the world that it is not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom designates Pakistan as one of fourteen “countries of particular concern” in regard to religious liberty violations. This is not the first time we have covered one of these fourteen violators and it surely won’t be the last. Each of the countries are either in Africa or Asia, but share little else in common and include a variety of religions and types of government.

Last year’s devastating floods in Pakistan were shocking to witness. The tragedy of the disaster was matched only by the tragedy of the response, from both Pakistan and the international community. It now appears that another crisis is occurring in the flood-affected Punjab region. Compass Direct News reports that “many Christians living in the southern belt of Pakistan’s Punjab Province who lost their houses in last year’s floods remain homeless despite a plan by the Punjab government to allocate land to residents in the area.” The housing problem is disproportionately affecting Christians and the provincial government, according to local resident Hameed Masih, “has not set a quota for granting of land to members of minority communities left homeless by the devastating floods.”

“Several people were allotted land last month, but so far no minority member has been given land,” Masih remarked. “Christians in this area are not rich people. They lost their houses and lands in the floods and should have been given a 5 percent quota in the scheme. Flood victims could have been easily accommodated, but the quota system has not been followed, and thus no minority member has been allotted land.”

In a fascinating report from the Baptist Press, that detailed the dramatic increase in religious tension around the world, Pakistan was one of ten countries identified as very high in hostilities involving religion. The other nine were Iraq, India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Israel and Egypt. There is hope among some that the Washington’s recently approved religious liberty envoy to the region could help improve relations in Pakistan’s interfaith community, but such results could take a very long time.      

At the very least there is a serious lack of communication or break down of procedure in Pakistan, but more likely it seems there is a problem in which Christians there continue to face discrimination not just in how they worship but in all aspects of their lives.

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

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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

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

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

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

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Exactly a decade later, almost to the day, I was traveling through Palestine with a friend from college. We were visiting Beit She’an, a Roman-era settlement, as well as Jericho and the banks of the Jordan River. As to be expected in the Holy Land, even when things are outwardly peaceful, a tension hangs in the air nearly everywhere you go. Military checkpoints had 18-year old female Israeli soldiers with sub-machine guns eye us suspiciously when we crossed into new territory. I had noticed helicopters hovering above our taxi while we were driving, but didn’t think anything of it. Then we were suddenly escorted to the side of the freeway by unmarked cars and quickly had more sub-machine guns aimed at our car by what appeared to be policemen, speaking rapidly to our driver while we sat mesmerized and terrified. As quickly as they came, they left, satisfied we posed no danger. Our driver told us they were looking for two suicide bombers in an identical van to ours on the same road at the same time. Our shock only increased when we read the newspaper the next day and saw that the suspects were in fact apprehended that day–same model of taxi-van, same freeway, same afternoon.

I have experienced the effects of terrorism in two countries, albeit not directly and fortunately not in any way that harmed me or my loved ones and for that I am thankful. One was the result of violent criminals who were White, staunchly Catholic, and Irish. The other was planned by Arab Muslims in the Middle East. For both, religion was an important motivation, but not the sole or even primary reason for their terrorism.

Like most terrorist acts, the motivation came out of a mix of socioeconomic and/or ethno-religious reasoning and such people rarely represent their community at large. If you have read this blog before, even just a couple entries, you know that we have profiled religiously motivated violence and terrorism in several countries and the aggressors are a colorful bunch–Hindus in India, communists in Cuba and China, Buddhist authorities in Thailand, as well as the aforementioned Muslims and Christians.

The horrific attack that occurred in Norway last week might be the worst terrorist attack to hit Europe in the post-9/11 era. The savage way that the acts were committed and the tragedy of so many youth being targeted makes the incident hard to comprehend. It was an alarming story for me to hear as I had camped in a similar location near Oslo some years ago, very close to where the killings took place. Many were quick to point out that the suspect is a Christian fundamentalist, an anti-Muslim terrorist, eager to erase Norway’s non-indigenous populations. There have been those on the right who are quick to ignore or brush this fact away and those on the left who see this as a way to further demonize religion, Christianity in particular.

Too many people in the news quickly blamed Muslims for the attack, speaking without any credible information in the hours before we knew the attacker’s name or motivation, leading to a CNN article on why we can’t blame the Muslims in such a situation without knowing all the information. The fact of the matter is that the demon of terrorism is one that will practice whatever religion it must to satisfy its craving for violence. Terrorism knows no religion that it can’t corrupt. Violence can find a home in any religion, any belief system, be it Muslim, Christian, or Sikh and it is not partial to any one in particular, despite the ramblings in the media. I have even had several good discussions with RLTV contributor Joshua Crouch this year about how violence and terrorism find just as comfortable a home in the lack of a religious structure, as we have seen this year in Laos, China, North Korea, and Cuba.     

As candidates for president openly admit their refusal to appoint a Muslim in their hypothetical cabinet, let us remember that the world’s one billion Muslims should not be judged on the actions of criminals, just as Christians would not want to be judged by the actions of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.

Khalid Latif in that same article gave his readers a suggested course of action, one we often forget about in this chaotic world, “Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Norway. May God make things easy for them and grant us all the strength and courage to stand up against those who preach intolerance and hatred, even if they look like us, align politically with us, or practice the same religion we practice.”

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

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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

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

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

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Article18: Laos — Four Christian Women Raped and Executed by Laotian Military Along Vietnam Border

 I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap.

Spending four dollars on a candy bar seems irrational. There are so many great tasting candy bars for 90 cents, why would I spend three more dollars for this Alter Eco specialty chocolate? In the end, they’re both equally bad for me and I won’t remember the difference tomorrow. Plus, I’ll be able to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks with the leftover change. Being a business major, I began wondering if these “socially conscious” products like Alter Eco chocolate, Threads for Thought clothing, and other specialty made products were all cutting edge ways for people to make money with the front of caring about the sustainability for the world and people. It seemed to me that it was a great marketing scheme, and that these people in the companies focused on promoting a cheaper product for a greater cost to consumers because they put the emphasis on the individuals making them. The government already has regulations, like labor laws, in place so maybe all this hype about building “sustainable communities” is just a fad or another way for small companies to make it against these transnational corporate giants.

To make things clear, I really am all about supporting the local coffee shop or book store instead of always flocking to big corporations; but when Amazon has the same product for less, it has been my impression that I would be a careless buyer to go somewhere else. This is a question that has been introduced to us with globalization. Growing up in a consumerist society, I’ve repeatedly been taught to find the best product with the lowest cost, it’s Business 101. Gobbling up my 90 cent chocolate, I started worrying about how many insects the FDA allowed per candy bar, realizing that maybe that was the downside to cheaper chocolate. My business professors teach that the bottom line is what matters the most, but I have grown up in a family immersed in mission work and advocating global consciousness. I have started wondering what is most important in order to simultaneously be successful and yet not cross my personal ethics. Is there a way to be both? Is money the only way to success? Surely there was a way to balance both sides instead of veering off in just one direction.

With these thoughts mulling through my head and chocolate lingering in my mouth, I walked into the Freedom Summit conference hear about all the forms modern day slavery takes, and how globalization has created prime breeding grounds for the vulnerability of the masses. The speakers included Condoleezza Rice—former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Bradley Myles—CEO of Polaris Project, and David Batstone—a Professor of Ethics at USF and founder of Not for Sale Campaign. In the hardest days as Secretary of State under the Bush Administration, Condoleezza turned to the Founding Fathers biographies and came to the conclusion that with every large struggle, “what seemed impossible one day, seemed inevitable the next.” She introduced us to the idea that anti human trafficking is the social justice movement of our century and what is happening behind the backs of the general public is far worse than slavery in the past. There are more slaves today than in any other time in history, and we are all doing our part to help propel it forward.

Much of this shocked me—while not being completely ignorant to the struggles of people globally, I still had the rude awakening that every person is participating in this victimization process, where the marginalized people of society always become the victimized, from sex slavery to forced labor. As middle-class consumers, we want to support our families and ourselves while still having our 401ks and Baskin Robbins family night. The great disappointment to us is not having the fudge sauce on our two scoops because they ran out; but where does the chocolate Baskin Robbins buys come from? Consumerism doesn’t leave much room for humanity. It turns people into self-centered buying machines. Instead of being praised for finding the best deal, maybe we should be praised for being globally aware.

Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, switched from working at a lucrative software company to starting his fair trade company and discussed the business side of slavery. Common sense shows that resellers want the best price, and distributors want to make money, so somebody needs to make up for the gap at the bottom line. I’m not willing to pick cocoa beans or cotton for a dollar a day, so who is? Trafficked boys on the Ivory Coast and factory children in Asia whose fingers are small enough to work intricate and dangerous machines fill this gap. At the other end of the sheltered world, people want more chocolate and twenty t-shirts from Costco, therefore creating a demand for this work. All traffickers need to do is provide children to employers who solely care about money, and the cycle keeps going.

Most human traffickers tend to be ex drug traffickers who have realized that unlike cocaine, people are a resalable commodity. This creates a higher earning power for the trafficker and minimal risks because in developing countries, people cannot search after every child. With a high reward and low risks, it is a perfect business set up; that is, if you just look at numbers. The chocolate didn’t taste as sweet in my mouth as I heard about how I was eating slave-produced products and wearing a shirt made by 10 year old hands.

Realizing that my demand is directly correlated with the amount of their exploitation was not satisfying. Instead of being a savvy shopper by looking for the yellow smiley faces on weekly deals, maybe the valued knowledge actually comes in knowing the product’s supply chain. The advertising for a product tasting the best or being the cheapest shouldn’t trump what is happening on the underside of their business. I don’t see a change coming in my chocolate addiction, but the 30 minutes more of work to buy the slave-free chocolate won’t strain my body as much as theirs. This conference probed me to think about the validity of these brands that I was a skeptic of. One of the careful statements that Nathan George, founder of Trade as One, made during the conference was that we as consumers may be overwhelmed at the prices of actually buying socially responsible items, but the first step is to reduce what we consume in order to balance it out. Do I really need to have a candy bar and Starbucks? Aren’t both of those luxury items anyways? By living responsibly, I’m giving others a higher chance of simply living.

This is easier stated than done. With opportunities for “deals” surrounding us daily, it’s hard to not fall into a pattern that we, as free people, are used to. One of the biggest reminders and strongest points I repeat daily is that I have done nothing to secure the position I have in life of being in a free country, just like these modern day slaves have done nothing to have their entire lives indebted to us because of the harsh demands we put on them with our high consumerist behavior. These socially conscious products contain more than just a new age aura or a better selling point; they represent a desire for the priority of humanity instead of selfish search for profit. The balance that fits in my life is one that requires awareness of what I consume, learning to live on less, and realizing that I can be socially active this the model and with my voting power. What changes can you make in your life to leave room for others?

Kate Case, a Global Studies major at La Sierra University, is a campaign strategy intern for California Against Slavery, a non-profit, non-partisan human rights organization working to get an anti-human trafficking initiative on the 2012 ballot for California. Case is the founder of the blog, The Priority of Humanity (http://www.priorityofhumanity.com), which is a compilation of books, documentaries, and other resources related to human trafficking. The blog also has information on current and pending legislation on the issue. This fall, she will be interning with Seventh-day Adventist Public Affairs and Religious Liberty Department in Washington, DC where her duties  will include research and advocacy.

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we focus on a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. Our apologies for last week–no new entry was posted because of server maintenance for the RLTV site. This week our focus is on  Uzbekistan, where several violent incidents of persecution targeting Christians were reported last month.

The U.S. State Department designates Uzbekistan as one of eight “countries of particular concern” in regard to religious liberty violations. Along with Uzbekistan, the short list of CPCs includes the worst of the worst–North Korea, Iran, China, Sudan, Eritrea, Burma, and Saudi Arabia. Additionally, the United States Commission on Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has called for Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam to be added to that list.

Independent since 1991, Uzbekistan, a majority Sunni-nation, is attempting to quell any potential threat to its totalitarian government by cracking down even harder on dissident groups, including Christians, after the series of uprisings known as the Arab Spring rocked the greater Muslim world earlier this year. Uzbekistan requires religious groups to be registered with the government and for President Karimov’s regime in Tashkent, the spread of any charismatic, foreign religious group is doubly threatening, given that Uzbekistan is both 93% Muslim and has a strong, often menacingly present communist legacy. Of the remaining 7%, the largest religious group are Russian Orthodox, approximately 4%, but their numbers are dropping, as are Uzbekistan’s Jews, who, along with the Orthodox Christians are emigrating by the thousands to safer, greener pastures.

Several recent incidents, violating the religious liberty of Uzbek Christians, caused alarm for many international observers. Worthy News’s Michael Ireland says that “according to the World Evangelical Alliance – Religious Liberty Commission, a Christian woman was beaten into concussion, another woman was fined $1,465 by a court for giving the New Testament to a child, a Christian man was threatened with axe attack by a police official and another man was assaulted by police.”

The status of non-Orthodox Christian groups, such as Baptists and Seventh-day Adventists, in Uzbekistan are often in limbo. The 2010 International Religious Freedom Report reports that “no Baptist church has successfully registered since 1999, and since 2000, four Baptist churches have lost their registered status.” Additionally, “other churches remained unregistered [including] Bethany Baptist Church in the Mirzo-Ulugbek district of Tashkent; the Pentecostal Church in Chirchik; Roman Catholic churches in Navoi and Angren; Emmanuel Church and Mir (Peace) Church of Nukus, Karakalpakstan; Hushkhabar Church in Gulistan; the Pentecostal church in Andijon; and the Adventist church, Greater Grace Christian Church, Central Protestant Church, and Miral Protestant Church, all in Samarkand.”

Interestingly, the report made a point to say that “the Russian Orthodox Church reported no registration problems.”

Sadly, such brutal state control is almost common place in Uzbekistan. In his analysis of the 15 former Soviet republics, Foreign Policy’s Joshua E. Keating not only labelled the country as “not free” but explained that Uzbekistan is “routinely ranked by international NGOs as one of the world’s most brutal dictatorships. Under Karimov’s rule, opposition parties are prosecuted [and] torture of political prisoners is commonplace.” The nation also has an atrocious human rights record, most noticeably in “the 2005 Andijan massacre, during which hundreds of anti-government protesters were killed in the country’s east by government troops.”

Uzbekistan has struggled frequently with Islamic militants, both real and imagined, combating the Islamic Jihad Union as well as demonizing Wahhabi Islam and equating its follower with terrorists.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the 2010 IRFR explains that the Uzbek government, completing its total invasion into a citizen’s private life, “does not prohibit a person from changing his or her religion [and] the private teaching of religious principles and the teaching of religion to minors without parental consent is illegal. Only a religious group with a registered central office may legally provide religious instruction.”

For a nation so infrequently discussed during dinner time, there’s certainly an awful lot of food for thought.

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

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Article18: Laos — Four Christian Women Raped and Executed by Laotian Military Along Vietnam Border

Article18: India — Christan Pastor Bludgeoned in Front of His Children; Government Blames “Predatory” Evangelistic Efforts

Article18: Afghanistan — Quran Burning Protest Leaves Dozens Dead; Freed Christian Convert Flees Country

Article18: France — Controversial Veil Ban for Muslim Women Continues to Divide Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

This is the first entry for Article18 –RLTV’s first weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we will be focusing on a different nation, and the struggles facing its different religious communities, be they Muslim, Christian, Hindu, or Jewish. Of course, those aren’t the only religions that will be profiled on this blog; time-permitting I plan to dedicate entries to other persecuted religious groups around the world. Sadly, I doubt I will ever run out of material for this blog. If I do, it really will be a marvelous thing.

Firstly a little about myself. My name is Martin Surridge. I’m one of the associate editors for Religious Liberty TV. My family left North London for California when I was 13 years old. Now, a few years later, I am a high school English teacher and freelance writer living and working near Atlanta, Georgia. Most of my writing stints have dried up since I moved away from the Pacific Northwest, and also since I started teaching full-time. So, excuse me if I’m a little rusty. It was during my short time in the Northwest that I graduated with a M.A. in Teaching from Walla Walla University, only about 6 months ago. Two years previously, in the fall of 2008, I received my B.S. in Social Studies from Pacific Union College in Northern California. During my college and university years, I covered world cup soccer for a small weekly newspaper in the Napa Valley, traveled to China, Turkey, Israel, Palestine, and Kenya, and interviewed high-ranking ambassadors and presidential candidates. I also nearly broke my shin trying to jump off an elliptical machine, and dropped out of a screenwriting class during the last week of a semester. As Michael Steele recently said, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

My goals for Article18 are to raise awareness and point to some of the problems and solutions facing the international community right now with regards to religion and issues of religious liberty. I invite discussion and welcome all comments and I’m looking forward to sharing this new project with you.

Article18‘s next entry and first major profile will look at the secession movement in Southern Sudan–if that is indeed what they end up naming their new nation should it break away this week–and how a divided Sudan might be good news for nation’s millions of Christians and Muslims.

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

Read the Latest Article18 Blog Posts Here.

2010 has been an interesting year in the area of church-state relations, both at home and abroad. While we cannot cover every event of magnitude that took place this year in this forum, we will touch on some of the more important events have taken place over the last 365 days.

American Events

In March, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance.  The case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, 05-17257, was the next round in the fight of Michael Newdow against the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, The Eastern District of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the reference to God in the pledge was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling on the technical issue of standing in 2004. The present case was argued in 2007. In siding with the school district, the Court found that the reference to God in the pledge was recognition of the religious history of the nation and was not an affirmation of God Himself. Furthermore, the Court found that the pledge was voluntary and students were allowed to opt out of the recitation for religious reasons.

Islamophobia once again became a popular buzzword in the months leading up to the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Much of the furor revolved around the proposed Park51, more popularly known as the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York City. The popular name of the proposed structure is exceedingly ironic, considering the fact that the structure is not a mosque and not within view of Ground Zero. The debate over Park51 was just the tip of the iceberg, as debates about proposed mosques erupted in Tennessee, California, and Wisconsin. The debate culminated over the treatment of Muslims culminated in the proposed Qur’an burning by Pastor Terry Jones on the anniversary of 9/11. Many politicians and religious groups of all stripes objected to the Qur’an burning, and Pastor Jones eventually canceled the event.

On August 4, the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on Prop 8 and the issue of gay marriage in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 violated the both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the defense who supported Prop 8 presented a fairly weak case, presenting only two witnesses, both of whom were ineffectual. Judge Walker was almost given no choice in ruling for the plaintiffs. However, all admit that this is just the first skirmish in an issue that may very well end up in the Supreme Court.

Church-state issues were briefly a part of the midterm elections, thanks to Christine O’Donnell. The Delaware Tea Party Candidate, in a debate with her Democratic opponent Chris Coons, questioned the presence of the concept of separation of church and state in the Constitution. She continued to press the issue even after Coons explained to her that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and Supreme Court cases had established the concept as a Constitutional principle. Many conservatives leapt to her defense, arguing that she was technically correct, and that she was misunderstood.

International Events

Throughout this year, France has been embroiled in a controversy regarding banning burqas and other forms of Islamic face coverings. The ban passed the lower house of the French Parliament in July, and passed the Senate in September. Naturally, Muslims in France have protested this law, citing the fact that their religious freedom is being violated. The last legal hurdle was cleared in October when France’s highest court ruled that the law was constitutional. The Court found that because the law did not restrain the use of burqas during worship, there was no violation of religious freedom.

In July, Argentina became the first Latin American country to allow gay marriage. The President of Argentina, Fernandez de Kirchner, supported this legislation, despite the strenuous objection of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church organized several protests in the days leading up to the vote. While the Kirchners (her husband is the former president) have been accused of supporting this legislation because of its personal political benefits, they and others have argued that the time for this law has come. Argentina has shifted to more politically liberal mores and therefore this legislation reflects the changed sensibilities of Argentineans.

Late this year, a truly historic piece of legislation passed in Peru. The legislature in Peru passed legislation that will guarantee religious freedom for all citizens, codifying a principle that was already present in Peru’s Constitution. The law protects both public and private expressions of religion, unless the exercise of that right infringes on the rights of others or causes a public disturbance. Furthermore, the law outlaws any type of discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion and establishes religious equality, providing these benefits to all citizens, regardless of their religious preference.

This year has seen an interesting shift in the status of religious liberty around the world. Nations that have largely been seen as the stalwarts of religious freedom, such as the United States and countries in Europe, have taken some steps to restrict the religious freedom of religious minorities and the irreligious, with varying amounts of success. However, countries that have historically been described as unwelcoming to religious minorities, such as countries in Latin America, have taken steps to extend freedoms to those less fortunate.

###

Jason Hines is an attorney and doctoral candidate at the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

By Rajmund (Ray) Dabrowski -

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

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

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

EXCERPT:

The date was June 5, 1917, the first day of the draft. Sousa’s Band struck up “Stars and Stripes Forever” and the 6,000 in attendance at the American Medical Association Convention in New York City rose to their feet as former president Theodore Roosevelt walked across the stage.

The United States had tried to avoid war, but the German U-boats kept a relentless attack on American interests at sea. In a complicated scenario the British were fearful that the anticolonialist Americans would enter on the side of the Central Powers, and there were rumors that Germany would enlist Mexico to join Japan in fighting the United States in return for Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

President Wilson, who won the presidency on the promise of keeping America out of the war, quietly began arming some American merchant ships, and Germany sunk several, an act that former president Roosevelt denounced as piracy. Roosevelt insisted on war, and on April 6, 1917, Congress declared war.

Once at the podium, Roosevelt ripped into those who did not support the draft for moral reasons. “The conscientious objector,” he said, “curtains his cowardice behind the statement that he objects to placing himself in a position where he might take part in killing someone. I’d guard his conscience. I’d send him to the front, but I wouldn’t give him a gun. I’d put him to digging kitchen sinks and trenches so that good men could rest until the time came for them to kill someone. Then I’d watch his conscience to see what it would do.”

Read the Full Article at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1636

As their final assignment for the play, I had students respond to the question, “How would you feel if your religious freedom was taken away?” The responses varied, in both length and reaction. Nearly all of the teenagers in the class are self-described Christians, but their approach toward religion varies from conservative evangelical to tolerant progressives to near-agnostic. Their reactions to a potential scenario in which they were not allowed to practice religion freely ranged from the pragmatic to conformist to vigilant resistance.

– Martin Surridge,  Associate Editor – ReligiousLiberty.TV
********

“I can’t even imagine what it would be like to lose my freedom of religion, because I rely on it so much. Since God gave me life and everything, if I couldn’t worship him and thank him for what he has done then I don’t know what I would do.” – Jake

“I would be very mad. Everyone has a right to religion. You can’t take it away from them –that would be messed up. It would be like someone coming up to me and saying, “Hey, there is no God, so don’t believe that there is.” I would tell them that I will believe in God, even if there isn’t one. It’s kind of like that, its just wrong to say to someone. If I was having my religion taken away I would have a back up plan, and maybe study my religion [in secret].” – Nat

“If my freedom of religion was to be taken away I would be sad and scared. I don’t know if I would be strong enough to stick up for my beliefs if they were to be taken away. I would like to think that I would be able to stick up for them, but I don’t know if I could.” – Kristi

“I would feel really bad because I would feel like I couldn’t worship God the way I thought was best or even at all. I don’t think even if you force people to convert that they truly would in there heart. But If I was forced to I wouldn’t. I would take what ever punishment even death for my faith. Jesus gave up his life for me and it would be the least I could do in repayment. I would stand up for God and I know I would be rewarded in heaven.” – Jamie

“I think that if I was not allowed to choose my religion I would be scared, because if I got caught then there might be severe consequences. There would be no hope or reason to even have religion.” – Dustin

“I think that if I was not allowed to choose my religion that there would be no hope or reason to even have religion. There would be three possible things that I might do. The first thing I might do is practice my religion in hiding. The second is to fight it but that might be dangerous. The third thing might be to conform.” – Daniel

“If my right to religion was taken away I wouldn’t feel a purpose anymore. Without my religion I would feel undefined, like a part of me was missing. I would feel like there was no point to life; because if I don’t have a Savior I have nothing to look forward to. Basically without my religion I wouldn’t have a sense of right and wrong. My religion is what holds my life together.” – Amber

“I would feel ripped of my life line. If it became illegal for me to worship God then I would have a hard time worshipping Him without telling people I do. I want to be able to be joyful in what God gives me. I would feel sad that I would have to hide my worship to even worship him a little. I feel like I have been forced to do something I don’t want to do. I would feel like I would have to get away from every one in order to worship.” – Caleb

“If my rights to freedom of religion were taken away I wouldn’t have any hope or reason for living. What I believe is what gives me courage to face each day and keep going. If that was taken away I would have nothing and no one to rely on, no support, I would have no purpose. I would be constantly angry and have no reason to serve and worship God if how I chose to do it wasn’t allowed.” – Lindy

“I think that if my right to freedom of religion was taken away, it would be like cutting off my air supply. I’d feel a mix of emotions, everything from hopelessness to despair. But, even with my religion gone, I still have God by my side. I know that that will never change. So, even though I’d feel cheated, hurt, upset, and despondent, I think that I’d end up being okay because no matter what happens, I can still have a relationship with the one person that will never leave my side.” – Danae

“If my freedom was taken away I would definitely have to look at what they mean by it being taken away.  But I think that if my freedom to choose what I believe, what church to be and what church to attend [was prohibited] I would be very offended and mad that my freedom was taken away. I feel very strongly about my religion because it is a part of me, a part of my family, and a part of my heritage. I was born into the church, raised in the church and have grown to be a part of the church.  If it ever was taken away, I think I would still practice my beliefs though people would try and stop me.” – Greg

“If my religious freedom were taken away, I would feel as if someone had taken part of my identity away. I have been a Christian all of my life, and so has my family. I would be very sad and depressed, and I would probably covertly still worship God. If someone forced me to give it up, it would be like forcing me to give up a part of myself. I can’t very easily change who I am.” – Alicia

“If my right to freedom of religion was taken away I would feel awful! I would feel like I’d been stripped of my very core. A person’s religion pretty much makes up who they are. So if the right to choose what you believe was taken away, you’d have to change the way you acted. That would be tremendously hard to deal with. I would feel like there was no point in going on if I couldn’t choose to practice what I believed. It seems unfair that Shylock would have to change what he believed simply because he made a mistake. It’s bad enough to have your possessions taken away, but religion too? That’s a really hard blow.” – McKenzie

If someone made me change my religion I would be really confused about why they would. I think it would be weird. I probably would not agree, but act just as the other people in the situation and make excuses. That would make it look just what they want to see. People can’t change your mind. I would be really ticked. I wouldn’t find it to be pleasant to do the same things that the other religion would do.” – Lex

###