By Michael Peabody

The other day someone sent me a link to an “Antichrist Decoder” that has been posted online by an otherwise reputable Christian ministry. You can type in anybody’s name and the program will calculate the value of the name in Roman numerals. 

After checking my name to make sure that I was not the Antichrist I looked at the other names that people had plugged into the decoder and learned that Barack Obama is not the antichrist, neither is Barack Hussein Obama.  Ronald Wilson Reagan’s name doesn’t add up to 666 even if you type in two “v”s to make the W.

People were having fun with the decoder and for the uninitiated it would be at home in a carnival next to the “Love Meter” or “Magic 8 Ball.” Perhaps an “antichrist decoder” made the rounds on the county fair circuit in years gone by, or a 666 Decoder Ring was the cheap plastic treat in the box of Cracker Jacks.

A conspiracy theory hits the same synapses as the Weekly World News or National Enquirerproviding junk food for the mind that masquerades as a nutritious meal.  Just this last week while little Falcon Heene was presumably floating above Colorado in a UFO-Shaped balloon, YouTube videos that his dad made about how Hillary Clinton could be a “reptilian shape shifter” spiked in popularity. And each night millions tune in hear George Noory on Coast to Coast AMwhile he discusses tunnels under the pyramids and portals to other dimensions.  And every year seekers crowd churches to hear the latest interpretations of Scripture that specify how mysterious political events are aligning to bring the world to an end.  The problem with the cheap thrill of side show conspiracy theories is that concern about legitimate issues is eventually eroded as the carnival callers “cry wolf” so often that the real wolves can count on a feast.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “Conspiracy Theory” as “a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.”

Christianity as a whole is planted on a conspiracy theory that one day the world will end and that there are forces at work right now among the “principalities and powers” of this world that will effect that change and that rescue is coming from outer space and that you can communicate with tremendous powers simply through the power of thought.  We don’t often view it in these terms but that’s how it would sound to a Martian if he happened to walk into a church service.

In reality, some conspiracy theories are true and verifiable, but others are not. It is important to distinguish between verifiable or substantiated truth and error because any error, even if it is meant well, tends to corrupt the entirety of the message. In the religious world, people tend to take “judicial notice” of scripture so speaking in harmony with an established text is generally accepted, but other issues require proven and reliable evidence or they will, of necessity, be questioned. Believing that something bad is afoot if it is not mentioned in scripture with specificity must be backed up with substantial evidence if listeners are to take it seriously.

Conspiracy theories that float around without substantial grounding in truth present several serious drawbacks.

First, conspiracy theories that do not come true affect your credibility.

“A good conspiracy is unprovable. I mean, if you can prove it, it means they screwed up somewhere along the line.” Mel Gibson’s character inConspiracy Theory (1997). 

Around the year 2000, the millennial conspiracy nutcases (we call them now) came out and said that the world would end, planes would fall from the sky, and the electrical power grid would crash. Then, following 9/11 George Bush was going to institute marshal law and become dictator for life. Today, the H1N1 vaccine is a mind control drug and amounts to biological warfare.

Is there any truth to these conspiracies? Perhaps there is, but nothing has happened in the first two, and I am predicting that the vaccine will not create a nation of zombies. Still there are people who email me tons of information about FEMA concentration camps, mass production of body bags, and all kinds of fascinating things. I usually read them because it is fun to be afraid but each time it seems less and less likely.  There is too much “conspiracy” noise out there to distinguish the truth from the error, and unfounded conspiracies based on nothing more than the eyewitness report of a “friend of a friend of a friend” are not persuasive.

Second, conspiracy theories can distract you from present responsibilities.

“A Conspiracy!” cried the delighted lady, clapping her hands. “Of all things, I do like a Conspiracy! It’s so interesting!” – Lewis Carroll, My Lady, Sylvie and Bruno (1889) 

There is an old saying that it is possible to be “so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” You can also be so “conspiracy minded” that you are of no earthly good.

When people tell me about conspiracy theories I often ask them whether they have taken the time to learn more about their faith or do good in their communities. They may show me some pamphlets they gave to people to “warn” them about whatever they think is going to happen but most of the time they haven’t done much more.

I do write this from a Christian perspective and I’ve learned over time that we really do have a lot of freedom in the United States and in Canada for the most part to speak freely about religion or politics, and to assemble. There are challenges from time to time which can be addressed but we still have the ability to address them. In a large sense, religious liberty is a supportive ministry that can be called upon when needed but does not necessarily need to be front and center unless there is a specific need for it.

Religious liberty ministry is like a fire extinguisher in a glass case. It must be charged up and ready to go. It needs to have all the resources to handle severe fires, but the sign says, “In case of emergency, break glass.” It can be used to inform people of current events but never to distract from the main mission of the church, which I believe is set forth in the Great Commission.

This segues nicely to the third reason I have a problem with conspiracy theories.

Third, conspiracy theories can become the center of your faith.

“Our cause is a secret within a secret, a secret that only another secret can explain, it is a secret about a secret that is veiled by a secret.”  Ja’far as-Sadiq (6^th Imam)

A while back there was a group of borderline Seventh-day Adventists who decided to spread the gospel by talking about the antichrist. They put up billboards all over the country, reserved space in major newspapers, and otherwise launched massive media campaigns. Most of the ads appeared to be miles of tiny text punctuated by dire warnings and a picture of the purported antichrist.

This would appear to be evangelism in the negative – in other words, tell people about the bad in the world to teach them what’s good. It’s like former rock stars and drug dealers turned religious who tell stories of their fascinating lives. They had money, power, fame, mansions, cars, planes, and everything else you could ever want in life. But then the stories become far less interesting when they become Christians and now live in their vans traveling the country. I suppose it works for some people so I’m not going to knock it, but it’s usually made me more curious about their past than about what’s happening now.

I’ve met a lot of people who will tell all their friends about conspiracy theories thinking that they are sharing their faith. I met one person who went around giving out copies of Foxe’s Book of Martyrsand would regale listeners with stories about extreme torture. Entertaining? Weirdly so.  But effective? Yes, in turning people into atheists.

Leading somebody to an understanding of 666 is not the same as sharing one’s religious faith. It may seem like more fun but it doesn’t do much good in making an argument as to why people should want what you have.

Fourth, conspiracy theories can cause you to create enemies out of people whom you should be befriending and cause you to question the sincere motives of others.

“There will ever be some who take delight in dwelling upon the real or supposed faults and failures of others, and who employ their time in seeing, hearing, or reporting something that will destroy confidence in the person criticised. Few are without visible faults; in most persons careful scrutiny will reveal some defect of character; and upon these defects in others, some professed Christians delight to dwell. The habit strengthens with indulgence, and a love for gossip becomes their ruling passion. They gather together the tid-bits of reports,–all of them, it may be, utterly devoid of truth,–and feast upon the scandal, and share it with others as a rare delicacy.” Ellen White – Review and Herald, August 28, 1883.

Weird stories about aliens, Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, or any other group can draw unreasonable and unnatural lines between people. One person I met is fixated on the idea that there will one day be a holy war in America and is planning to run away into the mountains to hide from it all, but is afraid that he will not be able to escape persecution when it comes because the persecutors will have GPS and heat detectors. 

Unfortunately, this person has become a virtual hermit who believes he is living a pious lifestyle when in reality he makes Howard Hughes look normal. If he would put some of his tremendous mental horsepower to work helping people with problems that they are facing today, such as poverty, homelessness, illiteracy, and any other ways, he would make a tremendous impact for good. But instead he has twisted the plot around so much that he views any meaningful interaction with the real world as dangerous. Almost everybody is involved in a conspiracy against him, and he believes that most people in the world are formulating plans to do him wrong. The world has pretty much stayed the same but he has become a paranoid freak.

I’ve met wild eyed conspiracy theorists in many areas of life, not just religion. It is very difficult to reason with a person like this because if you question them, they believe that you are now part of the conspiracy. They think the worst of anybody they disagree with.

Hiding away on a mountain somewhere is not a call to piety. Conspiracy theories may have their place as mile markers but they should not impede forward progress.

In reality, the truth is out there, but you’re not likely to find it in a decoder ring.  True appreciation of faith or even religious liberty issues do not thrive in fear or require a crisis to be meaningful.  You can help liberty thrive when you care about the world and engage with it and the people who live here. Tell the verifiable, undeniable truth and the facts will speak for themselves.

“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”  Micah 6:8

###

It was a powerful argument – that the people of the State of California have the “raw power” to change the state constitution in any way that they please.

Ken Starr, an esteemed advocate, may have won the battle but lost the war when he asserted that, “the right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”

Chief Justice Ronald George stretched Starr’s argument to explore its dimensions. He leaned in and asked a hypothetical – if Proposition 8 said that homosexuals had no right to form a family relationship or raise children, could that still be done by amendment? Starr said it could. Then George took the argument to the constitutional wall – could the voters also remove the right to free speech? Starr said yes, the voters have this right.

(Read the full article)

Video includes historical background on the court – to watch video of the March 5 advance to approximately 18 minutes and 46 seconds.

Strauss et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners)
(and two other cases, S168066 Tyler et al. v. State of California et al.
(Hollingsworth et al., Interveners) and S168078 City and County of
San Francisco et al. v. Horton (Hollingsworth et al., Interveners))

The court issued an order to show cause in Strauss, Tyler, and City and County of San Francisco directing the parties to brief and argue the following issues: (1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution? (See Cal. Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1–4.) (2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution? (3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

For more case materials including the many amicus briefs and actual court filings, visit the California Supreme Court website at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm

For more

By Doug Bandow on 3.3.09 @ 6:06AM

Somalia continues to implode, as Islamists gain increasing control over what remains of the impoverished, conflict-ridden nation. But it is not the only human tragedy in the region. Eritrea, which won its independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after decades of war, has earned a reputation as one of the world’s youngest tyrannies. It also is one of the world’s worst religious persecutors.

Eritrea poses an early challenge to the Obama administration. Border disputes with Ethiopia continue to threaten to flare into combat. Moreover, U.S.-Eritrean relations deteriorated steadily during the Bush years, as Asmara banned operations by the U.S. Agency for International Development and Washington imposed an arms embargo because of Eritrea’s weapons shipments to next door Somalia. Eritrean President Isaias Afeworki now has approached the Obama administration lobbying for a change in U.S. policy — expressing his hope in his congratulatory letter to Obama on his election that the U.S. will now “advance the cause of regional peace, justice and legality” — but Washington should make Eritrea’s atrocious record of religious persecution part of any dialogue.

Read more at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/03/religious-persecution-on-the-h

EXCERPT:

Considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s contentious struggles over free speech and religion, it was a surprise to say the least to see Wednesday’s ruling unanimously endorsing a government installation of the Ten Commandments in a city park.

While this ruling will likely have limited impact, it raises troubling questions about how dedicated this court – particularly the younger justices, who will be shaping it for decades to come – will be to maintaining the proverbial wall separating church and state.

. . .
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.

Read the full article at
Reading between the lines of this collection of opinions, it appears the justices worried that a decision upholding the Summum position would have the ultimate effect of forcing government bodies across the country to take down public monuments. That’s a fair concern. It’s one thing to say that all points of view should be heard in a public park; it’s another to say those views should be expressed in permanent monuments.

Whereas there is nearly an infinite amount of time and space for speeches and placards in the public square, there’s only so much room for slabs of granite. That was reasonable in this case, perhaps, but eventually the court must be more clear that government can’t use those slabs of granite to endorse one religion over others.

Some highlights:

The concept of economic freedom is considerably younger than that of religious freedom. In the last four decades it has grown out of the writings of notable, mostly neo-classical, economists. Its agreed cornerstones are: personal choice rather than collective action; voluntary exchange coordinated by markets rather than allocation via the political process; freedom to enter and compete in markets; and protection of persons and their property from aggression or harm by others. While there is considerable debate on which specific policies best promote economic freedom, there is broad agreement that controls on government size, expenditures, and taxes, coupled with the right to form enterprises, and a legal structure that provides security of property, are key to its flourishing. Other important features are access to sound money, transparent capital markets, freedom to trade internationally, and minimal regulation of credit, labor, and business, especially entrepreneurship.

             . . .

The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems.

The religion market model used by Barro, Becker, and others stresses the effects of competition as well as of the way government interacts with religion and influences participation in religion, or even the extent of religious beliefs. Since secularization theories have declined, there has also been an attempt to explain the resilience and growth of religion by stressing competition and markets. There is evidence that competition among religious providers leads to a growing market for religion. The greater the diversity and number of religious practices available in a given country, the greater the competition, which in turn promotes greater interaction between religions and a higher quality “religious product,” more religious participation, and the spread of religious belief systems. Government control or monopoly religious systems lead to a low degree of religious pluralism, reduce competition, and lower church attendance.   (Emphasis added.)

. . .

Religious liberty and economic freedom draw on and encourage similar traits. New data on economic liberty and religious freedom suggest that religiously free societies encourage entrepreneurs whose new enterprises benefit themselves, their companies, employees, shareholders, consumers, stakeholders and the entire community. In other words, religiously free societies usually display the highest concentration of companies that generate prosperity and broad development. Closed religious systems foul economic development and stunt growth. Closed economic systems are unkind or worse to religious sentiments and practice. Open systems in both areas are necessary to sustain human flourishing. Hence, if we desire more economic freedom and prosperity, then we should have a strategy of promoting religious liberty. If we want economic growth and development, we need to tolerate and permit religious groups and persons to follow their beliefs. Competition for religious activity creates healthy conditions for economic competition and activity.

 . . .

The promotion of spiritual capital requires that a robust variety of religious, and secular, ideas and practices be permitted in society. It requires the give and take of discourse and practice between and across different religious groups, including the “non-religious.” Linking religious liberty and economic freedom to form enterprises of lasting value is a cause for humane people, robust economies, and enlightened nations today.

Theodore Roosevelt Malloch is chairman and CEO of the Roosevelt Group and the founder of the Spiritual Enterprise Institute. He headed consulting at Wharton-Chase Econometrics and has worked in capital markets at Salomon Brothers. He has held positions at the United Nations and has served in senior policy positions at the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and in the U.S. Department of State.

Read the full article and view the PowerPoint presentation:

Director, UMHB Center for Religious Liberty
University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Belton, Texas

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama signed an executive order on Thursday, February 5, to create the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships.  The office replaces the controversial Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives that  George W. Bush  created to provide government grants to churches and other faith-based organizations to administer welfare programs.   ”The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another–or even religious groups over secular groups,” Obama stated when announcing the new office at the annual National Prayer Breakfast.  The purpose, he said, “will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.” 

The president’s announcement follows his selection last week of Pentecostal minister Joshua Dubois, 26, to direct the new office.  DuBois previously directed a religious outreach program in Obama’s former Senate office and holds a master’s degree in public affairs from Princeton University.  DuBois also headed the Obama campaign’s religious outreach efforts, which included organizing nearly 1,000 meetings with clergy across the country to discuss how government might work with faith-based and other community groups to improve the lives of people on the margins. 

Obama now faces the task of revamping the faith-based initiative while avoiding the criticism that was frequently directed at President Bush for ignoring prevailing church-state law. 

Obama now faces the task of revamping the faith-based initiative while avoiding the criticism that was frequently directed at President Bush for ignoring prevailing church-state law.   For example, many faith groups are now waiting to see if Obama will fulfill his campaign promise to prevent religion-based hiring for federally-funded positions within faith-based organizations that receive grants.   Under Bush, faith-based groups receiving government dollars were allowed to exclusively hire those of the same faith, a practice that defied traditional law and custom. Obama said in a campaign speech last summer, “If you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”  Obama has not specified how he will handle the hiring issue, but the executive order he signed Thursday calls for collaboration between his new office and the attorney general for advice on “difficult legal and constitutional issues.” (See www.pbs.org, 2-5-09).

No previous president had been as bold as Bush in crafting a specific program that would so dramatically challenge the American principle of church-state separation.  Grants to faith-based charities during the Bush years, more than 1300 total awards, averaged more than $2 billion annually.  While campaigning last summer, Obama criticized Bush’s plan, saying it “never fulfilled its promise.” Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the Bush plan was the way it failed, as promised, to end discrimination against religion generally and against various religious groups specifically.  When the Bush plan was first announced in 2000, well-known evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson voiced objections to the plan because it threatened “Christian America” since groups like Scientology, the Unification Church, and Wicca might receive government money.  But this concern proved toothless, since according to one study in November 2006 reported by the Boston Globe, 98.3% of all Bush administration grants to faith-based agencies from the Office of Faith Based Initiatives were awarded to Christian groups.  The practice of excluding non-Christian groups was confirmed by a former staffer in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.  David Kuo, in Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction, asserted that applications for federal faith-based funds were often rejected by reviewers because they came from non-Christian applicants.   Kuo reported being told by one grant reviewer, “When I saw one of those non-Christian groups on the set I was reviewing, I just stopped looking at them and gave them a zero. A lot of us did.” (Americans United Press Release, October 12, 2006).

President Obama faces a strong challenge to administer his new office in a way that fairly and effectively distributes government grants to worthy faith-based organizations while respecting settled American law governing the interplay between church and state. 

*************************************

The mission of The University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Center for Religious Liberty is to advance religious liberty for all persons, in all parts of the world, without regard to their religious, ethnic, gender, racial or national background. Religious liberty is a basic human right that must be nourished and protected by all human societies; it is the cornerstone of modern societies’ efforts to build a more peaceful world. The Center advances this mission by publishing relevant literature, hosting and sponsoring lectureships and conferences, sharing its expertise with media and other public information outlets, and partnering with other persons and groups who share the goal of advancing religious liberty.  The web site for the Center can be found at www.umhb.edu/academics/crl    

When we asked him if he had any editorials he would be willing to share with us, he forwarded the following essay prepared in advance of the January 2009 inauguration. While you may not agree with Dr. Newdow’s theology, his views on religious equality are thought provoking.  What do you think?  Post your comments below.  Editor

By Michael Newdow, Esq.
Posted on ReligiousLiberty.TV with the permission of the author.

In 1892, the 1/8th black Homer Plessy was convicted of violating Louisiana law by sitting in a “Whites only” railroad car. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, where his conviction was upheld by an 8-1 margin. “A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races,” wrote the Court, “ … has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races.”

The lone dissenter in that case was Justice John Marshall Harlan, who refused to buy into the majority’s logic. Although it was true that whites and blacks were treated “equally” in a literal sense (since the law prohibited whites from riding in colored cars just as much as the opposite), Justice Harlan focused upon the “real meaning” of the legislation: “that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens.”

It took fifty-eight years for the Supreme Court to recognize that Justice Harlan’s view was correct. In Brown v. Board of Education, the “real meaning” of “separate but equal”– i.e., that the nation’s white majority was using the government to affirm its self-proclaimed racial superiority – was put to an end. As a result, the whole of American society changed, so much so that we now have an African American poised to become the nation’s president. Surely, Barack Obama would never have been elected had Plessy remained the law of the land.

And yet not everyone has learned the lesson of Brown, including, of all people, Barack Obama. The message that “we” in the majority are “better” than some minority to which our Constitution guarantees equality is once again about to be sent. This time, rather than with race, it is in the realm of religion, as Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.

Mr. Obama plans to continue the practice, first introduced in 1937, of having clergy espouse the view that belief in God is superior to disbelief.

The hypocrisy of this “tradition” might best be seen by simply reading from his inaugural committee’s website. There one can read of a “commitment to … ensure that as many Americans as possible … will be able to come together to unite the country and celebrate our common values and shared aspirations.” With the official theme being “Renewing America’s Promise,” Mr. Obama is quoted for the proposition that “in America, we rise or fall as one nation and one people. That sense of unity and shared purpose is what this Inauguration will reflect.” Thus, in this inauguration, there is alleged “a commitment to organizing activities that are inclusive.”

Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, is surely aware that (as Justice Scalia has written) “government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma.” After all, he was teaching at the University of Chicago Law School when the Supreme Court instructed the nation that “the religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.” More importantly, having undoubtedly reviewed Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy on numerous occasions, the President-elect has to realize that the “real meaning” of such formal espousals of God’s supposed existence is to brand believers as “superior” and Atheists as “inferior” citizens, in precisely the same way as the “separate but equal” laws did barely half a century ago.  Actually, that’s incorrect. “Separate but equal” at least pays lip service to the notion of equality. There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another. It is only Monotheism that is provided with an official platform at the nation’s premier celebration.

There is nothing equal when the government explicitly chooses to place one belief system above another.

Does Mr. Obama really think that this divisive religious claim helps “to unite the country?” What message does he believe is conveyed when he asserts that proclaiming the glory of God is a “common value?” What could possibly lead him to argue that a “sense of unity and shared purpose” results from intruding into the inauguration a religious ideology that, like every religious ideology, is divisive? He’s a graduate of Harvard Law School, who must have reviewed the text and the history of the First Amendment numerous times. How can such a learned man reckon himself “inclusive” by paying homage to a Supreme Being denied by millions of those he represents?

Two months ago, when the American people chose Barack Obama to serve in the highest office in the land, it seemed that Homer Plessy’s dream had finally been realized. America, we thought then, truly stands for the justice and equality guaranteed in its Constitution. Yet, in a few days, as our new president steps up to the inaugural podium, the reality will be that government-sanctioned favoritism – now for religion, instead of race – will continue. Perhaps some day, as the leader of our nation swears “to preserve, protect and defend” the document upon which Homer Plessy’s dream was founded, he or she won’t simultaneously be ripping it … and us … apart.

A few days ago,  January 25, 2008, we posted Dr. Robert Moon’s response to the speech by Cardinal J. Francis Stafford given to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.   Pastor Bill Cork, has granted us permission to repost his view on the subject, originally posted on his blog at http://billcork.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/stafford-on-religious-liberty/   Dr.  Cork received his  M.A. (1986) and M.Div. (1989) from the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg. He has also has D.Min. from the Graduate Theological Foundation, and has been blogging on current issues since 2002.

At RLTV we are pleased to present thoughtful essays from a number of viewpoints, and we would like to hear yours as well.  Editor

On November 13, 2008, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, head of the Vatican’s Apostolic Penitentiary, gave a speech at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in which he discussed the role of religion in public life.  It was an important speech, and critical for understanding contemporary Catholic teachings on religious liberty and the relation of church and state.

It’s a highly philosophical discussion, starting with this point, “A person’s public life is not encompassed within the State as the highest social organism, and not subject ultimately only to the political power.”

We can agree with that, I think.

But then comes this:

President Thomas Jefferson’s celebrated 1802 letter to the committee of the Danbury Baptist Association asserting “a wall of separation between Church and State” formally denied the reality of res sacra in temporalibus. He introduced a latent and powerful virus which would eventually be used to diminish and then to wound mortally a theology of discourse in the public arena. It has led to the increasingly secularized states of the American union and their active hostility towards the Catholic Church.

Does the “wall of separation” keep people of faith from acting according to their conscience? Does it keep them from having a voice in the “public square.” No. It simply means that there is freedom of religion and that no church is supported by the state. We are not now, and never have been, a “Christian nation.” But we are a nation in which Christians, Jews, and believers and unbelievers of all other kinds have always had a voice. That’s different than the secularism of Europe. But it was crafted specifically in opposition to the history of church/state relations in Europe, as supported by traditional Catholic teaching (as well as the modified forms in Anglicanism and Calvinism).

He speaks of attacks on individual conscience and blames Jefferson.

Some of these governments are threatening Roman Catholic adoption agencies because of their refusal to select same-sex couples as potential adoptive parents. They are forcing Catholic hospitals to accept medical procedures which are contrary to the dignity of the human person. They are insisting on hiring practices which will destroy the Catholic identity of health and social services under Catholic Church auspices. They have not refrained from coercing the individual conscience. Here the federal and state governments are enshrining the primacy of secular laws over against religious principles. These decisions are the legal and moral progeny of Jefferson’s insistence on debarring personal faith from the public forum.

Jefferson didn’t say that. He said there’s a wall of separation. He said there is individual freedom. He did not believe that the state should run rough-shod over the individual conscience. Stafford refers to the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, but what does it say?

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others ….

And the actual heart of the legislation:

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Jefferson’s ideas, far from being the cause of infringement on conscience, are the remedy. Rather than rejecting them as evil, Stafford should embrace them as the proper response. This is our American heritage; it protects him as much as the Quaker, the Jehovah’s Witness. It puts all beliefs on the same playing field and says no one should suffer civilly because of their beliefs–which are not things that are for personal reflection only, but which they have the right “by argument to maintain.”

Ah, but it is the Catholic tradition against which Jefferson rails. A tradition in which one church is favored by the state, and its teachings have a privileged place. So we have to ask Stafford if this is what he is really seeking. If Jefferson’s clearly stated concepts, the foundation of American liberty, are odious to him, what does he want us to return to, the Catholic understanding of “Christendom,” against which Jefferson railed?

He doesn’t answer the question. He shifts to a his main topic, human sexuality, and the struggle between the cultural shift of the 1960s and the Catholic response, Humanae vitae.

And he does so in an apocalyptic framework. This is worth mentioning.

Furthermore, since this month, November, is the time in which the liturgy of the Church reflects on the final things – heaven, hell, purgatory and death, I will be attempting to strengthen the Catholic faithful, as St. John did in the Book of the Apocalypse, against the ever increasing pretensions of the state making itself absolute. For the next several weeks the Book of the Apocalypse will be read at daily Mass. The theme of that final book of the Bible is that the Battle of the Logos has always already been won on Calvary. In the immense conflicts associated with the teaching of Humanae Vitae, the overarching task of the Church is to make manifest for the faithful the apocalyptic victory of the Lamb in our historical time.

The emphasis is his. He sees the struggle as one between an absolute state and the Church–and the Church will triumph over the “absolute” state “in our historical time.” He sees the struggle between the Catholic understanding of church/state relations and Jefferson’s as an apocalyptic one, and is sure the Catholic ideal will triumph over Jefferson.

Stafford may be an American, but he seems to have no love for the nation or its ideals. It has moved in recent decades from being “a mansion to a dirty house in a gutted world.” It’s history is characterized by “meanness.” Roe v. Wade is just the latest step for him in a procession that includes slavery and hostility to Indians, with nary a bright spot along the way.

In today’s society, he argues, all that matters is power. Technology, politics, economics, all are tools to maintain power, without religious or philosophical moorings. Instead the human being seen as body and soul, the soul has been suppressed in the service of technology. Here’s his connection to Jefferson–Jefferson’s “wall of separation” removed the “soul” from the body politic. His separation of church and state left the state without a moral conscience. The solution for Stafford: reunite the two.

The response of the Church’s magisterium has been based on the ancient Catholic imagination recaptured happily by Pope John Paul II in his now famous phrase,”the nuptial meaning of the human body created as male and female.” The response includes “being true with the body and the soul.” … David L. Schindler in a recent paper on human sexuality summarized his first principle supporting the differentiated unity of body and soul: “The Soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body then, simultaneously, contributes to what now becomes in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied”.

He carries on the discussion with references to marriage and the Eucharist, noting that the physical is never separable from the spiritual. Salvation is not a matter of freeing the soul from the body; we are essentially human as a unity of body and soul.

The subject of moral acts is each person, a dual unity of body and soul, a psychosomatic whole. Anything that smacks of a body-soul dualism is firmly rejected. One cannot attempt to free the soul from the body. When a human being seeks the truth and the good, his body is not an afterthought or an accident or a ‘tomb’ for the soul.

This anthropology has implications for how we understand civil society, as well.

As Archbishop of Denver, in 1996 I addressed a Pastoral Letter to the people of northern Colorado on the historical importance of a culture formed by the medieval Anglo-Saxon Sarum Rite and by the even more ancient Gregorian Sacramentary. Peoples in such a culture intuitively interpreted reality through the covenantal and bridal relationship of God and creation and of Christ and the Church. Consequently, they would find absolutely inapprehensible the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality activity as a valid moral option. Such activities are a direct assault not only upon the Sacrament of marriage but also upon the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Here the emphasis is mine. This is the goal. This is his desire: that we “intuitively interpret reality through the covenantal and bridal relationship of God and creation and of Christ and the Church.”

The human spirit finds its inner completion only as something honestly externalized, since the human spirit in this life is always already embodied. The body is the externalization of the spirit.

He wants to return Catholic faith to its role as the spirit of the body politic, rendered soulless by Jefferson’s doctrine of separation of church and state. Morality can’t just come from within–that leads to relativism and subjectivism. Jefferson’s vision of a society where each person is free to argue can only lead to chaos, for Stafford. There must be an external reference in truth. He doesn’t spell out his vision, but leaves it for us to complete the analogy, quoting a medieval poem in which the separated Divine Lover pines for Man’s Soul.

In the autumn of 2008 we must begin anew with that sentiment of our medieval brother. Quia amore langueo. With Jesus we are sick because of love toward those with whom we are so tragically and unavoidably at variance. The reader has now become one with the narrator who is addressed in line one as “Dear Soul”. As Humanae Vitae with the whole Catholic tradition teaches, we are to “be true with body and soul”.

Stafford expresses well traditional Catholic teaching on the relationship of Church and State. His talk is in harmony with the teaching of Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quas primas (November 12, 1925), establishing the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic calendar, by which he sought to exalt Christ’s “necessarily supreme and absolute dominion over all things created,” through the application of Christian principles to secular government. Stafford’s criticisms of American society echo those made by Pius XI of the western world in general, and identify the same root problem:

What We said at the beginning of Our Pontificate concerning the decline of public authority, and the lack of respect for the same, is equally true at the present day. “With God and Jesus Christ,” we said, “excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”

Stafford’s criticisms of American church/state separation likewise echo complaints made by prior popes. Consider, for example, Pope Gregory XVI,Mirari Vos (15 Aug 1832):

14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.²¹ When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”²²] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws–in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Likewise, Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (8 Dec 1864):

4. And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?

Later in the 19th century, Leo XIII wrote Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, denouncing “Americanism,” fearful that its teachings (freedom of thought, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, even democracy) might infect the Church.

But, beloved son, in this present matter of which we are speaking, there is even a greater danger and a more manifest opposition to Catholic doctrine and discipline in that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that her supervision and watchfulness being in some sense lessened, allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity. They are of opinion that such liberty has its counterpart in the newly given civil freedom which is now the right and the foundation of almost every secular state. …

These dangers, viz., the confounding of license with liberty, the passion for discussing and pouring contempt upon any possible subject, the assumed right to hold whatever opinions one pleases upon any subject and to set them forth in print to the world, have so wrapped minds in darkness that there is now a greater need of the Church’s teaching office than ever before, lest people become unmindful both of conscience and of duty.

Some thought that Catholic teaching on religious liberty was changed by the Vatican 2 document Dignitatis Humanae. Let us be clear about the teaching of the Council. It affirmed religious freedom, that is, “immunity from coercion.” But it insisted on the Church’s right to a place in civil society. Here is a key paragraph:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

During his 2008 visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI frequently praised the American tradition of religious liberty–but carefully avoided mentioning separation of church and state. He emphasized that religious liberty is not merely a right of the individual conscience, but also must include the right of Christians and churches to freedom of action in the public sphere. See, for example, his remarks to the UN:

It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order. Indeed, they actually do so, for example through their influential and generous involvement in a vast network of initiatives which extend from Universities, scientific institutions and schools to health care agencies and charitable organizations in the service of the poorest and most marginalized. Refusal to recognize the contribution to society that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for the Absolute – by its nature, expressing communion between persons – would effectively privilege an individualistic approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was simply the theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, spoke often of a “hermeneutic of continuity,” meaning that the Second Vatican Council should be interpreted in harmony with prior teaching, not as a new break. Cardinal Stafford’s talk gives us insight into how the Council’s teachings on religious liberty can be understood in continuity. The state cannot coerce the conscience, while at the same time it  must give freedom to the Church to teach and guide those consciences and social policy. The Church claims to be the sole authoritative teacher of truth; it sees that its moral teachings will triumph over all societies in the “social reign of Christ the King.” It sees this as the solution to the crisis of the contemporary world.

Let’s be careful, then, that we speak not only of religious liberty, but that we uphold the American tradition of separation of church and state as well. It has served us well. It allows individuals to be guided by their own religious teachings and morals, but it does not give a privileged place to any church. It affirms the freedom of individuals to believe, and to act in accordance with those beliefs, without fear. If that freedom is threatened–and I agree with Stafford that it is–then the solution is not to tear down the wall, but to build it even higher.

EXCERPT:

Complaints of religious discrimination in the workplace are on the rise, but civil rights advocates say that may not be such a bad thing.

That’s because a likely reason for a steady rise in reported incidents has nothing to do with intolerant corporate cultures but rather religious minorities who are more aware of their rights and more willing to exercise them.

“Before, somebody might have prayed kind of quietly at work and hoped nobody would stop them and didn’t really want to ask permission,” says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). “Now they state openly: `Yes, I’d like permission. Is there an open room where I could pray?”‘

Between 1992 and 2007, claims of religious discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission more than doubled, from 1,388 to 2,880. Among the contributing factors: a growing U.S. population and tensions precipitated by an increasingly diverse workforce.

But recent years have also ushered in a new era of assertiveness, especially among members of minority faiths that require specific codes of dress, diet or behavior, according to David Miller, director of Princeton University’s Faith & Work Initiative.

“They’re not the kind of complaints you would have seen 10 or 15 years ago,” Miller says.  

Read the full article at http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/01/workplace-discrimination-claim.php

On November 13, 2008  J. Francis Cardinal Stafford spoke before the International Conference to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C.   His speech attracted singificant attention for its controversial viewpoint.  You can read the full text of the speech by clicking here.   Dr. Robert Moon, a member of the ReligiousLiberty.TV advisory panel responds.   Editor

“ . . .if Obama, Biden and the new Congress are determined to implement the anti-life agenda which they spelled out before the election, I foresee the next several years as being among the most divisive in our nation’s history.” Cardinal Stafford 

“Widespread religious skepticism was the outcome. Nothing is recognized as definitive and “meaning itself is forever postponed.”[26]  A  movement toward “a dictatorship of relativism” is the diagnosis which Pope Benedict XVI has given to this phenomenon. 

Is the current struggle between Catholic Moral Theology and Social policy, and Secular society political policy on an unavoidable collision course? The Pope’s recent phone conversation with Pres. Obama and Pres. Obama’s executive order making possible the use of American funds to support abortion internationally have profound implications for a potential collision course. Cardinal James Francis Stafford’s November 13, 2008 Address to Catholic University of America, “Being True with Body and Soul”provides valuable insights from a Catholic perspective to complex religious-state-secular questions.

Moral Theology is the Catholic teaching about how man must live to obtain favor with God. Social policy is the body of social principles and moral teachings written in papal, conciliar, and other official documents.

The most recent is “Sacramentum Caritatis” (Exhortation on the Eucharist) by Pope Benedict XV1. Cardinal Stafford’s address links sex and the Eucharist in a most interesting manner which bears much reflection. It should be recalled that Protestants have no Moral theology- ethics would be the closest consideration. It should also be recalled that the U.S. was formed by the “Protestant ethic” and that Catholic moral and social teachings in the high places of government are of recent origin.

Cardinal Stafford’s address notes the current court rulings regarding adoption and artificial insemination, with their implications for Catholic institutions and thus the “coercion” of Catholic conscience. It traces the rise of Secularism to Jefferson in his “Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom” Jefferson said: “Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free. . .who being Lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercion of either. . .” Jefferson’s concern was also coercion and specifically the coercion of conscience caused by religion. It is particularly interesting that Jefferson and Cardinal Stafford have the same problem in mind – “coercion”. The question, of course, is what is the best way to solve the problem of coercion.

The address is a forthright presentation of the Catholic position regarding the technological mindset which it projects forward to President Obama and his cabinet. The Cardinal lays the charge of “Deathworks” at the feet of the current administration. By this he means any and all acts which are “anti-life” including social engineering and the regulation of birth.

One of the philosophical problems he encounters, however, is whether in the case of aids couples should use prophylactics. Official church policy teaches that a state of “one flesh” is not attainable by the use of prophylactics The Cardinals solution is for the world to move from the “Ice age” of technology and secularism back to the “High Desert” of the Eucharist. It is only in the union of “one Flesh” with the “Bride and Bridegroom” that man is complete. Thus the “one flesh” of man and wife are corollary to the “one flesh” of the Bride and Bridegroom – unity with Christ and the church via Eucharist.

Jefferson, on the other hand, might contend that while God created both man and woman he also gave them both “reason” and that the church in unity with the state has most often abused both conscience and reason.

The facts are that both church and state are capable of coercion. One question the reader should consider is this: Is conscience more likely to be respected in a Nation where there is “separation of Church and State” or in a nation where the state adopts the “moral and social policy” of the church? A second question which needs to be considered is: does secular relativism have the potential to impose a state course of “social policy” and are we moving in this direction? Finally, is there a middle ground to these issues which avoids unnecessary religious or state coercion?

 Idealism always attempts to paint issues black and white. The reader will have to contemplate the heart wrenching question of sex, aids, prophylactics, and reason to resolve these issues.

Read Cardinal Stafford’s Speech, “Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II: “Being True with Body and Soul” here.

1. Photo from Faithbase.

EXCERPT:

WASHINGTON - After decades of ceding God to the GOP, at least in the public square, Democrats – with President Obama in the lead – are speaking with a fuller religious voice. The watchword? Inclusiveness.

It’s a voice that signals openness at a time when diversity in American religious life is rising.

“We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday’s inaugural address.

Wednesday’s National Prayer Service, a tradition since George Washington’s inauguration, featured faith leaders chosen “to symbolize America’s traditions of religious tolerance and freedom,” said the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee. It included, for the first time, a sermon delivered by a woman.

For Obama, the broad outreach into the faith community isn’t confined to ceremonies but is emerging as a key element in his approach to coalition-building, say religious leaders who worked on the transition.

Read the full article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0122/p01s02-usgn.html

Photo from Faithbase.

Full Transcript: Saddleback Presidential Forum, Sen. Barack Obama, John McCain; Moderated by Rick Warren
Aired August 16, 2008 – 20:00 ET

WARREN: Religious persecution, what do you think the U.S. should do to end religious persecution, for instance, in China, in Iraq, and in many of our supposed allies? I’m not just talking about persecution of Christianity, but there’s religious persecution around the world that persecutes millions of people.

OBAMA: Well, I think the first thing we have to do is to bear witness and speak out, and not pretend that it’s not taking place. You know, our relationship with China, for example, is a very complicated one. You know, we’re trading partners. Unfortunately, they are now lenders to us because we haven’t been taking care of our economy the way we need to be. I don’t think any of us want to see military conflict with China.

So we want to manage this relationship and move them into the world community as a full partner, but we can’t purchase that by ignoring the very real prosecutions, persecutions that are taking place, and so having an administration that is speaking out, joining in international forums, where we can point out human rights abuses, and the absence of religious freedom, that, I think, is absolutely critical. Over time, what we are doing is setting up new norms and creating a universal principle that people’s faith and people’s beliefs have to be protected.

Over time, what we are doing is setting up new norms and creating a universal principle that people’s faith and people’s beliefs have to be protected.

And as you said, it’s not just Christians, and we’ve got to make sure, you know, one thing I think is very important for us to do on all of these issues is to lead by example. That’s why I think it’s so important for us to have religious tolerance here in the United States. That’s why it’s so important for us, when we are criticizing other countries about rule of law to make sure that we’re abiding by rule of law, and habeas corpus, and we’re not engaging in torture, because that gives us a moral standing to talk about these other issues.

10.  Religious Pluralism & America’s Christian Nation Debate: Revisiting the Intentions of America’s Constitutional Founders -  By Gregory W. Hamilton –  ”The constitutional system of the United States of America remains the envy of the outside world despite the growing unrest of our European allies towards our country’s Administration, and the continual provocation against it by terrorists and a few hostile Arab-Muslim nations.”

9.  J. Brent Walker – “Church and State in the USA: Promises and Challenges” - This thought-provoking address was given by J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty at the Congress on Religious Liberty in Buenos Aires, Argentina on April 28, 2008.  It was originally posted on the BJC website (bjcpa.org) and is reposted here in its entirety with permission.

8.  Announcing and Enacting Peace in an Age of Empire - By Ryan Bell – “Some have said that the church shouldn’t get involved in politics. While I agree that partisan politics have no place in the church, we cannot escape the call of Jesus to affect our world for his kingdom. This is what it means to be peacemakers – to announce to the world, “Our God reigns!” and to enact God’s peace in tangible ways in the neighborhoods where he has planted us.”

7.  It’s about the Kids, Stupid: A Review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn – By Nicholas P. Miller – “everal thousand years of nearly universal experience has shown that traditional marriage, with all its flaws and shortcomings, is a very good way of raising children.”

6.  Controlling Freedom of Conscience – By Robert Moon – “Historically, most governments required citizens/subjects to have the same religion or belief-system (e.a. Fascism and communism ) as the ruler(s). Exceptions were seldom tolerated. Those who publicly practiced an alternate belief system to the ruler(s) were often intimidated, persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and martyred. In the discussion that follows paradigms typically used by governments attempting to control freedom of conscience are referred to as: the Gold Rule Paradigm (GRP), the Gatekeeper Paradigm (GP), and the Over Stimulation – Fantasy Paradigm (OS-FP).”

5.  Could Chet Edwards be Obama’s Running Mate? Edwards speaks on Religious Liberty - Rep. Chet Edwards – “I believe perhaps America’s greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy is our model of religious freedom and tolerance. The foundation of that religious freedom is the principle of separation of church and state, imbedded in the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights: ‘Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles. Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing could be further from the truth as Jefferson stated over a century ago.”

4.  The Hijacking of Religion – by Jonathan Gallagher - “For a country to move from general tolerance to extreme intolerance in just a few short years speaks of the power of religion, and its ready exploitation by those seeking political authority and control. The fuel is human competition. For where there is enough food, land, water and other resources, the need to fight other communities is much reduced. But as the world becomes increasingly overpopulated, then such scenarios can only increase. Religion is so close to the heart of how any society defines itself that those seeking political power and worldly goals will readily use such a potent weapon. The exploitation of religious belief is not new—witness the jihads and crusades from history—but its greatly increased impact and extent will be the dominant factors for the foreseeable future.”

3.  Manifest Destiny and the Momentum of Empire: Making Sense of America’s Global War on Terrorism – By Gregory W. Hamilton – “Today there are two significant global movements that enjoy a symbiotic relationship. The first involves America’s accelerated role as the world’s propagator of democratic values, and as a matter of national and international security the world’s enforcer of those values. The second is the not-so-obvious rapid global expansion of Christianity, a phenomenon that is aided by the expansion of democratic values while also facilitating the spread of those values.”

2.  BREAKING NEWS – Russia Moves to Liquidate Fifty-Six Religious Groups - by Derek Davis – “ On October 15 the Russian Ministry of Justice took steps to begin liquidating 56 non-Russian Orthodox religious organizations. The groups face dissolution, Russian news sources reported, because they failed to file required annual reports on their activities. Those targeted include a range of non-Russian Orthodox organizations and churches but hardest hit were various Christian groups, both Protestant and Catholic. Baptist groups were prominent on the list, but Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Seventh-day Adventist and Pentecostal groups were also included. Well known humanitarian groups such as World Vision and Youth with a Mission were also named, as was the Russian branch of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Non-Christian organizations were also named, including Muslim and Buddhist associations.”

1.  On September 23, 2008 an Innocent Man is Scheduled to Die - By Terry L. Benedict – “How Easily Can an Innocent Man Lose His Life?  Ask Troy Davis, who came within a harrowing 23 hours of execution by lethal injection last year and received a new execution date of September 23, 2008.”

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came–next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams–visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!

Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory–

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside–which the startled minister did–and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

“I come from the Throne–bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import–that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of–except he pause and think.

“God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two–one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this–keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

“You have heard your servant’s prayer–the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it–that part which the pastor–and also you in your hearts–fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory–must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

“You have heard your servant’s prayer–the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it–that part which the pastor–and also you in your hearts–fervently prayed silently.”

“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle–be Thou near them! With them–in spirit–we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it–for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted an appeal from a religion that you probably never heard of until it hit the news yesterday. Summum is rooted in gnostic Christianity (or, at least modern understandings of gnosticism) and ancient Egyptian religion (or, at least contemporary understandings of ancient Egyptian religion). It was founded in 1975 and has its headquarters in (of all places) Utah. You can get more information at the official Summum web site.

The case before the Supreme Court is based on the fact that the small town in Utah has a large, stone monument in the city park of the Ten Commandments. The believers in Summum petitioned the city council to add another monument with their seven principles of good behavior. The city council refused, thereby establishing the religions of the Ten Commandments (Judaism and Christianity) over the little sect of Summum. The small religion has raised enough funds to hire attorneys and appeal their case all the way to the top court in America.

There are serious constitutional issues about religious liberty in this case even if you have a hard time taking Summum seriously. But, I want to focus on something else: The way new religions are being invented and why so many people are moving away from the large, historic faiths.

U.S. society today is dominated by three social realities: (1) a free market, (2) individualism and (3) access to information (unconfirmed and well-proven, but with no easy way to tell the two apart). In this context everyone has the freedom to make their own decision (unfettered by real logic and facts, among other things) about what to believe. Because faith is clearly a fundamental part of what it means to be human, this does not mean that religion simply shrivels and fades away (as sociologists of religion generally believed when I first studied the discipline in the 1960s). It means that people who find existing religions unsatisfying are free to create their own custom-built spiritualities. If they have any capacity for being influential or their creation appeals to others, then any of these custom spiritualities can become a religion. Consequently we live in a time when more new religions are being created than any time in about 2,000 years.

[The Supreme Court has no option, in my opinion, but to tell the city council of that little town in Utah that they cannot allow one religion or set of religions to have a public monument in the city park while denying the same to other religions, no matter the relative numbers of adherents. Of course, they could take down all religious monuments from the public land and let each religion purchase its own land for its displays. Or, they could provide a space where all religions that come forward with a memorial that meets minimum standards of size, etc., are allowed to place such displays. There are those who do not like any religion who will argue that the second solution discriminates against those who believe in nothing. But, if we were to apply the same logic to freedom of speech, then there could be no public speech because it discriminates against those who oppose all speech. Either way, such logic ends up doing away with the right that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect.]

For those of us who are believers, there are a couple of lessons here that are even more important:

One, we must respect all expressions of religion and spirituality. Each represents at least one person trying to relate to the divine, reaching out to God, in their own way. If we look down on their attempts, we certainly will not be able to provide any assistance in guiding them along the way closer to, or at least in the direction of, “the God that is there.”

Two, We must take seriously the religious/spiritual expressions of others, no matter how ridiculous they seem to us. These are real people who are really trying to relate to divinity, to make sense out of the larger realities in the universe. Unless we take them seriously, listen to them, we cannot enter into dialog with them. If we cannot dialog, then we cannot follow the commands of Christ to share His good news.

The time is gone when we can go through the long-established routines and well-known arguments on various doctrines, using the logic that is familiar to us. That seals off the truth from discovery by most Americans; it makes the faith non-accessible.

It is also true, I think, that the large numbers of Americans who are not active in religion (about six in ten) are, most of them, in a kind of neutral place between leaving behind the established religions and embracing or creating a new faith. The Nov. 14 issue of The Week has a small piece about Sally Quinn, the well-known journalist, and her journey with religion, which is quite instructive. I quote key passages in the summary below.

Quinn was “forced to go to Sunday school” as a child, but at age 13 declared herself an atheist. “When her first son … was born with a hole in his heart, Quinn found herself praying fervently for his life. ‘Nothing happened. I didn’t feel anything. No sense of comfort, no feeling of being embraced. I didn’t try praying again.’ For the next decade” she ignored spirituality all together while struggling with the severe medical problems of her son. “But in 1992, at a California spa, she became fascinated by a huge labyrinth that was traced on the ground. She was told to walk it focusing on something important to her. ‘I entered the labyrinth and walked very deliberately toward the center, holding an image of a normal healthy [son].’ Surrounded by soaring oaks, bathed in the sun’s warmth, Quinn had a revelation. ‘The tears came streaming down my face as I saw my gorgeous little boy, smiling, his arms outstretched, reassuring me that he was going to be just fine.’ [Her son] has since grown to manhood and Quinn herself now sees divinity in the everyday world. ‘My image of God may not be the personal God so many pray to. But, yes, I do believe in the everyday preciousness of life. That is what I call God.’” (Page 12)

Quinn’s experience is an honest personal experience with faith, no matter how unorthodox or heterodox her theology may be. If we cannot accept it has such, then there is no hope for dialog and we are denying, in practice, our own, orthodox Christian faith.

From: Faith in Context – commentary by Monte Sahlin on religion, values and contemporary issues

Used by permission.

——

Monte Sahlin has worked to understand contemporary trends in our society and to help congregations and faith-based organizations make innovations since he organized ACT while in college at La Sierra University, Riverside, California, in the 1960s. ACT was a student volunteer organization that served in inner city neighborhoods and with suburban teenagers.

He is currently chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry, a research organization and resource center helping pastors, congregations and other organizations understand new generations and how to engage with them. He is also chairman of the executive committee of the Center for Metropolitan Ministry, a “think tank” and training organization based on the campus of Columbia Union College in Washington, DC, as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Campolo School for Social Change at Eastern University in Philadelphia and in the DMin program at Andrews University. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, a coalition of researchers from more than 40 denominations and faiths who produce the Faith Community Today (FACT) research.

Sahlin is an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, currently serving as a vice president in the mid-Atlantic region of the denomination. He served for 12 years at the denomination’s North American headquarters with responsibilites for church ministries, media projects, social needs and issues, and research and development. He has pastored small and large congregations in major metropolitan areas and Appalachia. ]]> http://religiousliberty.tv/new-religions-a-small-sect-makes-it-to-the-supreme-court.html/feed 20 http://religiousliberty.tv/breaking-more-cooperation-planned-between-the-united-nations-and-world-religions.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=breaking-more-cooperation-planned-between-the-united-nations-and-world-religions http://religiousliberty.tv/breaking-more-cooperation-planned-between-the-united-nations-and-world-religions.html#comments Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:28:25 +0000 Jonathan Gallagher http://religiousliberty.tv/?p=782 By Jonathan Gallagher, Ph.D.

New York, NY, USA… [December 16, 2008] Representatives from the United Nations and religious leaders met together with non-government organizations in New York Tuesday to promote greater cooperation between the UN and religious groups worldwide.  The intent in the words of the organizers is “to explore new ways and means to advance cooperation between the world’s religious communities and the United Nations.”

In his welcome, Dr Sunggon Kim, a Korean MP and permanent director of the International Peace Corps of Religions, said that “religion is all about peace within, politics is about peace on the outside. To create wholesome peace we need cooperation between religion and politics. The UN should play the role of a good father in the global family, while interfaith organizations should play the role of good mother. We need to advance cooperation.”

Giving the keynote address, Dr. William Vendley, secretary general of Religions for Peace, identified three main reasons for cooperation between the UN and religions: peace is a common concern of both governments and religions; religions have assets for peace-building; and there is already a revolution of cooperation among different religions around the world. “Religions are not just made up of wonderful people carrying buckets to put out a fire,” he said, but could effectively make a great difference in society. “Religious communities are learning to become bilingual,” he noted, meaning that they were developing the ability to speak another religion’s language. What was needed, he conclude, were “principled partnerships between religions, governments, and the United Nations.”

Other speakers for religious groups agreed. “All religious teachings have a positive role in building peace among individuals and institutions as we put people first above all other things,” commented Ven. Hyun-Jong, director of research at the Institute for Buddhist Studies in Korea. “Faith communities are here to stay, and are sometimes more trusted than governments,” noted Mrs Helen Grace Wangusa, Anglican representative to the UN, and detailed many examples of Christian contributions to peace-building. Dr. Sayyid Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America emphasized the need for tolerance and mutual respect, saying that “true respect between religions is to respect one another’s beliefs and practices… diversity is a manifestation of our Creator’s will.” Consequently, “religions must recognize truth,” and produce “a new message for a new millennium,” he said.

Many other contributors noted the major shift in attitudes towards religion at the UN. “There’s a growing realization in the United Nations of the role of religion in promoting peace in the widest sense,” commented Mrs. Judith Hertz, co-chair of the Commission on Inter-religious Affairs of Reformed Judaism.  “It’s a sea-change, a paradigm shift at the UN,” added Rev. Chris Ferguson, the World Council of Churches representative to the UN. Dr. Azza Karam, Senior Culture Advisor at the UN Population Fund looked for “issue-based strategic alliances” between UN agencies and religious organizations, while Ms. Liza Barrie, chief of Civil Society Partnerships at UNICEF said that they had “long recognized the potential  for religious organizations to contribute to the welfare especially of children,” and that “such work together can be practical, inspirational, and respective of different faiths.”

The day conference , sponsored by the Korean government and organized by Religions for Peace and other peace-related organizations, brought together some 100 leaders from various sectors of society including government, religious groups, and UN agencies.

[Jonathan Gallagher]

1. Article 1.
2. Article 2.
3. Article 3.
4. Article 4.
5. Article 5.
6. Article 6.
7. Article 7.
8. Article 8.
9. Article 9.
10. Article 10.
11. Article 11.
12. Article 12.
13. Article 13.
14. Article 14.
15. Article 15.
16. Article 16.
17. Article 17.
18. Article 18.
19. Article 19.
20. Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
21. Article 21.
22. Article 22.
23. Article 23.
24. Article 24.
25. Article 25.
26. Article 26.
27. Article 27.
28. Article 28.
29. Article 29.
30. Article 30.

The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 2008.  (Read more)

Here is the Declaration in its entirety:

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and “to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.”

PREAMBLE

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.

(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.

(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Visit http://www.humanrightsactioncenter.org/ for more information.

It is free and anybody can join!

Click here to join ReligiousLiberty.TV on Facebook