Linda Galloway and Linda Stephens filed suit in 2008 claiming that the town’s prayer practice affiliated the town with the single creed of Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed granted summary judgment against Galloway and Stephens. The 2nd Circuit overturned the summary judgment and remanded the case to the lower courts.

In this ruling, the Second Circuit did not preclude prayer, but noted that even though prayers may be offered with the best of intentions, those giving them may attempt to “convey their views of religious truth, and thereby run the risk of making others feel like outsiders.”

The court set what appears to be a new standard for determining whether a prayer, or pattern of prayers, is appropriate.

Justice Guido Calabresi wrote for the majority.

“What we do hold is that a legislative prayer practice that, however well-intentioned, conveys to a reasonable objective observer under the totality of the circumstances an official affiliation with a particular religion violates the clear command of the Establishment Clause. Where the overwhelming predominance of prayers offered are associated, often in an explicitly sectarian way, with a particular creed, and where the town takes no steps to avoid the identification, but rather conveys the impression that town officials themselves identify with the sectarian prayers and that residents in attendance are expected to participate in them, a reasonable objective observer would perceive such an affiliation.”

The court also was not impressed by the town’s claim that it would have accommodated volunteers from other faiths since the town “neither publicly solicited volunteers to deliver invocations nor informed members of the general public that volunteers would be considered or accepted, let alone welcomed, regardless of their religious beliefs or non-beliefs.”

The Galloway court referenced the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers., 463 U.S. 783 (1983) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nebraska Legislature did not violate the establishment clause by opening its sessions with prayer as it was “simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, which had argued for the Town of Greece, is currently deciding whether or not to appeal the decision either by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari or asking the full circuit to rehear the case en banc. The appeal would be based on the idea that the town should not need to take additional steps, such as calling for volunteers, to insure compliance with the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

This decision appears to be a rare win-win where the town can continue to have prayers offered, but needs to be more proactive in making sure that the opportunity is made available to a wider range of faith groups.

Prayer is a way to reach for the Divine in reverence and should not be a launching point for an argument. After 2,000 years, there is still wisdom in these words:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.  Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV).

###

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

Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless the United States of America.”

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

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

Read the full article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

I would like to say that Franklin Graham’s appearance on “Morning Joe” was unique in this political season. On Tuesday, Graham was asked whether he thought President Obama was a Christian. Graham said he has to take President Obama at his word, but that he did not know whether Obama was a Christian. When asked why he felt unsure about Obama’s spirituality, Graham recounted a story of when he asked the President how he came to me a Christian. Pastor Graham asserted that Obama started attending a Christian church only to make inroads into the communities he was working at the time. Furthermore, President Obama’s Christianity is further obscured because Muslims consider the President to be a son of Islam, and because the President’s actions do not show him to be a Christian. However, when he was asked whether Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich were Christians, Graham readily said yes. This would have been very surprising if not for Rick Santorum’s statements over the weekend that President Obama was attempting to establish a “phony theology,” a theology that is not based on Christianity.

Religion often becomes a political football during the election season, and this year is no exception. In addition to these statements questioning President Obama’s religion we have also seen contraception become a major religious freedom issue with many church charities and organizations upset about the new health insurance regulations. While there are many different ways to look at these subjects, I see a strong commonality in all of these events – they each deal with the power of definitions in interesting ways.

Santorum and Graham each seek to define what it means to be a Christian. For Franklin Graham it seems that your Christianity is in doubt if you fail to support his political agenda. For Santorum if you support an agenda that seeks to protect the environment, than you support a phony, unchristian theology. It was so odd to see Franklin Graham express doubt about President Obama’s theology and then turn around and wholeheartedly support the Christianity claims of Santorum and Gingrich. It would have been better if he stayed with his original line of thought – that he should believe what people say regarding their religion. The first problem with Graham’s statements is that so many of them are wrong. While the President may not have been as forthcoming with Pastor Graham in private conversation, he certainly has made very explicit statements about his faith, as recently as the National Prayer Breakfast on February 2nd of this year. Also, I am not an expert on Sharia law (and neither would I suspect is Pastor Graham), but it seems that he may be wrong about President Obama as a son of Islam. The freedom of conscience that people like Pastor Graham and Senator Santorum advocate for is the same freedom of conscience that should allow them to respect President Obama’s version of Christianity, even though it differs from theirs.

The attacks on President Obama’s religion and the Religious Right’s fight against the new healthcare regulations are evidence of another attempt of redefinition that is taking place in America. In fact, at the root, these attacks are an attempt to redefine the constitutional role of religion in American life. Both Senator Santorum and Pastor Graham have established a de facto religious test for the office of President. Why does it matter to Pastor Graham whether President Obama is a Christian? Why does it matter to Senator Santorum that Obama has a phony, unchristian theology? These things matter because to them a person should not be president unless they are Christian. And that Christianity cannot just be any Christianity, but a form of Christianity that is aligned with what they think is correct. The problem is that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids religious tests for public office. The “religious freedom” being claimed by Christian groups as they debate the new healthcare regulations is an attempt to redefine the principle of the separation of church and state. Never in U.S. history have the courts granted such expansive exemptions as the ones these denominations propose. The question of religious exemptions has been settled law since 1990, when Justice Scalia writing a Supreme Court opinion that established the principle in Employment Division v. Smith that religions cannot get exemptions from neutral laws of general applicability. These religious groups are seeking to establish a one-way principle for the separation of church and state where the government cannot interfere with them, but they are allowed to dictate to government as they please.

By Jason Hines – Last week on the ReligiousLiberty.TV Facebook Page, Michael Peabody asked us to put historical, feasibility, and preferential objections aside and describe what a truly “Christian nation” would look like. How would it conduct foreign and domestic policy for example? This is an incredibly difficult question for me. Of course, part of my life’s work is about pressing against the idea of a “Christian nation,” but I thought this would be an interesting question to take up to see if I could fashion what a true Christian nation would be like.

I think we have to start at the most basic point – what do we mean when we say “Christian nation?” Part of what makes the notion of a Christian nation unworkable is that I don’t think Christians in America (or anywhere else for that matter) could ever agree on what a Christian nation should be. If Christians can’t agree on what it is, how could the ever actualize it? In some of the comments on left on the Facebook page, some have noted that a Christian nation is impossible because of Christ’s statement that his kingdom is not of this world. (John 18:35-37) While this argument has merit, I mention it only to make the point that it would be hard to actualize a Christian nation if you had a contingent of Christians saying that having a nation is against the very premise of Christianity. In order to address the idea of what a Christian nation is, we have to define both what a nation is and what it means to be Christian.

Some would say that a nation is simply its people and therefore a Christian nation is a nation that has a majority of Christians. If that is the case, than America is already a Christian nation. According to Gallup, 78% of Americansidentified themselves as Christian in 2011. However, I think that definition is too simplistic. A nation, in my opinion, is more than just its people. Our nation isn’t just a bunch a people running around. We have levels of government and other institutions that make up what our nation is. So I think a Christian nation would have laws and institutions that reflect the Christian ethos. But how will we define the Christian ethos? Obviously we would attempt to have our laws reflect the teachings of Christ, but is there anything else we need to fulfill the Christian ethos? I want to argue that we should restrict it to just the teachings of Christ, but that would not be accurate in terms of describing what Christianity is today. We would have to include the entirety of the New Testament (including what people like John the Baptist, Paul, and Peter taught) as well as what we can glean from the Old Testament. Referencing the Old Testament makes the project particularly thorny because while the Old Testament gives us a very explicit guide about what a Godly nation would be through the Children of Israel, one could also argue that the Old Testament is very different from the new. Moreover, we would now have to go through a project of deciding which laws given then would be relevant today. While this forum is not the place to give a complete delineation of what a Christian nation would be and do (I think this is actually a really good book topic) I will attempt to address some of the more interesting elements of policy that I think a Christian nation would enact.

One of the more interesting things that would exist in a Christian nation would be the debt and welfare system. In Deuteronomy 15: 1-11, Moses lays out a fairly liberal and debt and welfare system. Not only were Israelites expected to loan people what they needed, all debts were to be cancelled every 7 years. Moses explicitly mentions that Israelites should not refuse to loan someone what they need because the 7^th year is approaching. Moses also fails to mention any kind of repayment plan or interest. I think this is an interesting thing to have done on a national scale. I am not sure if you would enact a law that required citizens to assist each other, or if you would just create a wide open welfare system where no one was rejected and anyone could have access to resources from the government to be able to survive. I assume you would also have regulations to ensure that credit card companies and other lending organizations would cancel debts every 7 years. This would essentially erase poverty and a phenomenon that may be worse – debt slavery. For example, it has been more than 7 years since I left law school. Imagine if my law school debt had been cancelled at some point since 2003? Imagine if credit card debt were cancelled every 7 years?

How could there no be universal healthcare in a Christian nation? Besides all the miracles of Christ (most of which deal with improving the physical and mental health of others), you would essentially have universal healthcare because you would be required under the welfare system to loan people the money they needed to cover hospital costs, if the situation should arise.

I think it is important at this juncture to point out that these things do have a parallel in the New Testament. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus delineates what his followers will do. In Matt 25: 35-36 He says, “For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.” A Christian nation should certainly live up to this high standard.

When we look at the Sermon on the Mount, we see several things that would have to change in our society. Imagine if we could arrest you for anger (Matt 5:21-22) or if you could potentially be liable for adultery for looking with lust at someone who was not your spouse (Matt 5: 27-28). Foreign policy could be summed up by Matt 5:43-45 – “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”

I have so far avoided the elephant in the room, which is the relevance of Levitical laws. I have avoided it because I am unsure exactly what to do with it. Levitical laws (found mostly in Leviticus 19 and 20) seem outdated and many of them require death for things that we would not even dream of considering capital crimes today. However there is a strong argument for the idea that if we’re going to rely on the Old Testament for anything in the Christian ethos, then we have to include the “bad” with the good and include all of these laws in our Christian nation. However, I would rather argue that those particular laws are contextual and not meant to apply to today, or to nations outside of the children of Israel.

There seems to be one requirement for a Christian nation that would stand above all. In Exodus 24, after God has given Moses a series of laws (not just the Ten Commandments), Moses presents them to the people. Exodus 24: 3 records the people’s response. “[T]hey responded with one voice, ‘Everything the LORD has said we will do.’” This requirement is what makes a truly Christian nation impossible. In order to truly be a God-led nation, God must make a covenant with that nation, and the people of that nation must then confirm that covenant with God. While each of us is able to make that covenant for ourselves, there has been no record of any nation having such a covenant on a nationwide scale with God. Wake me when that day comes and maybe we can have this discussion again for real.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amy Tarkanian, the state GOP chairwoman told The Associate Press that she has asked the Republican National Committee to weigh in on whether the religious voters should be accommodated by moving their voting to Saturday night, or moved forward to February 2.

Casino titan and Republican party supporter Sheldon Adelson has raised concerns about the scheduling of the February 4, 2012 caucus, which falls on Saturday, or the Sabbath as celebrated by orthodox Jews, Seventh-day Adventists, and members of a few other religious groups.

The proposed changes would allow religious voters who observe the seventh day as a holy day to vote on an alternate date while most Nevada Republicans would be requested to caucus from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on February 4.

If you support religious accomodation for Nevada GOP voters who observe the Sabbath on Saturday, contact the GOP with a message of thanks and support for the decision at http://www.nvgopcaucus.com/contact

Here is a sample message:  ”Just wanted to thank you for considering accommodating members of the GOP whose religious beliefs require that they rest on Saturday.”

Judge Scott M. Matheson wrote on behalf of the unanimous court, “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses has resulted in concrete problems in Okalahoma.” (Awad v. Ziriax).

Larson test a Gateway to Addressing Laws that Discriminate Between Religions

The 10^th Circuit also applied the Larson test as a gateway to the Lemon test. While the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) applied to “laws affording uniform benefit to all religions, and not to provisions…that discriminate among religions,”  in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 255 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that if a law discriminated between religions, it could survive only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest asserted.”

In the case of California Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10^th Cir. 2008), the 10^th Circuit had described Larson, “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion …. The State may not adopt programs or practices…which aid or oppose any religion….. This prohibition is absolute.” Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.

Proponents of the Oklahoma amendment had argued that Larson was no longer good law because it is used infrequently, but the 10^th Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court had never overturned it, and stated that this rarity “likely reflects that legislatures seldom pass laws that make ‘explicit and deliberate distinctions between different religious organizations’ as contemplated in Larson.”

In fact, the Supreme Court had referenced the rarity of this type of case in Church of the Lukimi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. City of Hileah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)(“The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions.”)

The Larson case facts were mild compared to the facts of  Oklahoma amendment case. In the Larson case, a Minnesota statute imposed certain registration and reporting requirements on religious organizations that solicited more than 50 percent of their funds from non-members. No specific religious group was identified. But the Oklahoma statute specifically targeted Islam, and was defined in these terms: “Sharia Law is Islamic Law. It is based on two principle sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed.” (SQ 755).

The Oklahoma amendment further instructed the courts to “uphold and adhere to … if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.” The law did not prohibit Oklahoma courts from upholding laws of any other religion. The Oklahoma amendment also included language that Oklahoma “courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Because of the lack of Sharia law in Oklahoma, the Court ruled that the harm that the amendment would remedy was “speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.” Further, the court said that there was no way to tell whether the amendment would solve any Sharia law problem since “one cannot try on a glove to see if it fits when the glove is missing.”

The Court further found that Muneer Awad, a Muslim who had filed the case, would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. The court applied on the principle that “[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Kikumara v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950. The 10^th Circuit also noted that although states can legislate in certain areas (including ballot initiatives), “these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”

The full decision is available here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

CONCLUSION: Certainly, if Islamic law had been imposed, it would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. But without that even being at issue, the Amendment became an excuse to marginalize a religious group.

Americans’ religious liberties are under attack — or at least that’s what some conservatives say.

Newt Gingrich warns the U.S. is becoming a secular country, which would be a “nightmare.” Rick Santorum says there’s a clash between “man’s laws and God’s laws.” And in a campaign ad, Rick Perry decried what he called “Obama’s war on religion,” saying there is “something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly … pray in school.”

Of course, children can pray in school, but Perry is echoing a larger argument: that religious freedom is at risk. The story is much more complicated than either side makes out.

Read more and listen to the radio broadcast at http://www.npr.org/2012/01/08/144835720/has-obama-waged-a-war-on-religion

In the months leading up to the election, on September 12, 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the issue of his religion. In the weeks leading up to the speech, many Protestants had questioned whether Kennedy’s religious beliefs would preclude him from being objective in the White House. Kennedy’s response that he believed in separation of church and state was an eloquent response to the questions.   Fifty years later, they remain relevant. Here is a transcript of what he said:

Rev. Meza, Rev. Reck, I’m grateful for your generous invitation to speak my views.

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so. And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test — even by indirection — for it. If they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none; who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him; and whose fulfillment of his presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in, and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a “divided loyalty,” that we did “not believe in liberty,” or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the “freedoms for which our forefathers died.”

And in fact ,this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died, when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches; when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom; and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey. But no one knows whether they were Catholic or not, for there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress, on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)— instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948, which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts. Why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their presidency to Protestants, and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France, and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views. For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser — in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the presidency — practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can “solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so help me God.

Description: The Sabbath is a gift that Senator Joe Lieberman, as an observant Jew, received from his parents who, in turn, received it from their parents, who received it from generations of Jews before them. According to ancient tradition, the line of transmission extends back to Moses at Mt. Sinai, who received the Sabbath as the fourth of the Ten Commandments. In this book, Lieberman will offer the gift of Sabbath observance—a gift that has anchored, ordered, and inspired his life—to readers of all faiths.

In the past century, the Sabbath has fallen on hard times. It is thought of as just another day or as a time to squeeze in some extra errands or recreation that you may have missed during the workweek. The weekend passes in a blur of often meaningless activity. Combining personal and political memoir with history and broadly informed religious reflection, this book is a practical how-to guide, with simple suggestions for introducing the Sabbath into your own life. It will be a very personal book, yet also one animated by reflections on history and larger social trends. It will also include profound reflections of both classical and modern Jewish sages, from the Talmud and the ancient Jewish prayer book, the Siddur, to Maimonides, to Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Rabbi Soloveitchik.

For more information:

Mark Kellner, of the Adventist Review, recently interviewed Senator Lieberman.

Senator Lieberman was also interviewed on Fox News.

Those same questions tugged at me recently when I traveled half a world away from our editorial offices in Silver Spring, Maryland, U.S.A., to Australia, to participate in a religious liberty meeting of experts in Sydney, Australia. I left Australia some decades ago as a teenager; and each time I return, the question of what I have made of my life nags at me.

The day I arrived in Sydney I stopped off at Paddy’s Market, where they sell things like kangaroo skins and souvenir hats made in China. It was crowded and noisy, with commerce yelled out in mostly accented English. I found that I was less interested in buying than analyzing the sellers. They struck me as an incredibly diverse group, and I wondered about the story of their lives.

One especially vigorous and vocal Chinese woman caught my attention. “You want to buy souvenir pens?” she pitched. I looked over the products briefly, and asked her where she was from. “I come from Hong Kong,” she answered in a voice still pitched for Mandarin but heavily accented with Australian inflections. “Where are you from?” was her bounce back.

Read the full article

EXCERPT: The sound and smell of motorcycles roaring down a street in Kandahar must have overwhelmed 16-year-old Atifa in the moments before the attack. Before she really knew what was happening, one of the cyclists approached Atifa, her sister Shamsia, and several other girls and threw acid onto their faces. Atifa’s scarf melted into her hair, and 19-year-old Shamsia lost much of the skin on her face and the temporary use of her eyes, swollen shut from the inflammation.

This tragic story, as well as details of other acid attacks on Afghan school girls, was reported by CNN’s Atia Abawi in January of 2009. Stunned observers around the world learned that the religious extremism in Afghanistan was more violent than many had thought possible. Despite the forty-fourth article of the Afghan constitution specifically promoting the education of women, many Islamists still hold the hard-line views of the Taliban, which from 1996 to 2001 banned even basic female education for being un-Islamic.

Afghanistan has been called a failed state—a nation incapable of governing itself adequately. It is a land marked by systematic corruption, widespread human-rights abuses, and continual violence. Landlocked in the mountains of central Asia and highly dependent on the export of heroin, Afghanistan has been gripped by war, civil unrest, and terrorism for nearly a century. Instead of improving, things there seem only to be getting worse.

Since regaining its independence from the British in 1919, Afghanistan has ousted kings and generals. The country endured and then resisted Soviet occupation in the 1980s, and suffered through a lengthy civil war. The civil war facilitated the rise of the Taliban, who gained power after storming the presidential palace in the capital city of Kabul in September 1996.

Read the full article on the Liberty Magazine website

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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: Germany — Pope Benedict XVI Addresses Legislators; Chancellor Merkel Calls for Global Religious Tolerance

Article18: Poland — Citizens March to Protest Antisemitism; Death Metal Singer Not-Guilty After Trashing Bible on Stage

Article18: Kosovo — Muslim Headscarf Ban Upheld for Schools; Christians Required to be Buried in Islamic Graveyards

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

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

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

“Presidential candidates feel no shame in asserting divine purpose in U.S. policies and actions. In this ubiquitous view of American exceptionalism, the nation is not bound by rules to which others must submit.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-bacevich-american-exceptionalism-20111016,0,3240927.story

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we profile a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. This week, Germany, where during a homeland visit, Pope Benedict XVI urged lawmakers to consider religion when drafting laws and Chancellor Angela Merkel highlighted the role that religion can play in the quest for world peace.

The DPA reported that Pope Benedict XVI, “used a speech to Germany’s Bundestag on Thursday to exhort politicians to keep religion in mind when drafting laws, and he defended his right as head of the Vatican to speak in the parliament.” It was explained that his visit was not specifically as a religious leader, but rather as a guest of state.  His “speech to the Bundestag was mainly a philosophical attack on the idea that religion has no place in ethics and politics.” But while some were concerned that the Pope was seeking to influence politics in Germany by taking sides in any upcoming elections, Benedict stated, “I am clearly not promoting any particular political party – nothing could be further from my mind.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany, may not have been seeking to anticipate or preempt the Pope’s remarks, but she also highlighted the importance of religion recently when she spoke for an Italian Catholic peace group in Munich last Monday.

“‘The separation of church and state should never make us forget that we easily become arrogant without belief in God,” Merkel told the assembled group.

Merkel also explained that while terrorism has affected millions, the global community should not let Islamists be the most influential religious group and that other faiths should strive to help undo some of the damage terrorism has caused.

“Politics can encourage cohesion, but it can’t command it to happen. Religion was wickedly misused in our own times. I believe that combating poverty and injustice are a good way to remove the sources of terrorism.”

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: Poland — Citizens March to Protest Antisemitism; Death Metal Singer Not-Guilty After Trashing Bible on Stage

Article18: Kosovo — Muslim Headscarf Ban Upheld for Schools; Christians Required to be Buried in Islamic Graveyards

Article18: Pakistan — Christian Flood Victims in Punjab Face Land Discrimination in Disaster Aftermath

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

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