Here is an excerpt:

In reviewing the history of the religion clauses of the Constitution, onecan take two paths. One supports the basic ideal underlying ourconstitutional framework: equality, which is inclusive and is based onrespect for all religious opinions. The other leads to exclusion byadvocating for one or more non-universal religious views. The first reflects the Framers’ goals for guaranteeing liberty to all. The other guarantees liberty only to those who muster the political might to use the state’s machinery to advocate for their religious beliefs. The first exists to protect every individual. The other focuses on the fact that the white, male, property-owning Framers believed in God, and thus concludes thatthe magnificent document they created “permits the disregard” of religious minorities with alternative beliefs.

Why would anyone choose that latter path? Why go out of the way to“permit the disregard” of a minority when such a notion is nowhere to be found within the text of the Constitution, and a historical reading can as readily and more nobly support the equality principle? What sort of American patriot, citizen, or public servant would work towards such an end?”

The entire article, which is well worth reading, is available in PDF format for free download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document for free.)

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT:

In June 2005, Justice Antonin Scalia contended that ‘the Establishment Clause…permits the disregard of devout atheists.’ This statement is extraordinary inasmuch as it appears to reverse an inexorable (albeit, at times, wandering) trend toward true equality. Thus, where individuals had previously been treated as less than equal on the basis of race (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sandford), gender (e.g., Bradwell v. State) and national origin (e.g., Korematsu v. United States), those odious decisions are no longer good law. In his McCreary dissent, it seems that Justice Scalia sought motion in the opposite direction: toward overturning equality, in the one constitutional arena where the Supreme Court had not previously proclaimed such a manifest animus toward minorities: religion.
This article takes three approaches in considering the Justice’s argument. First, recognizing that Justice Scalia prides himself on being a ‘textualist,’ it considers the Establishment Clause’s text (‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion’). Next, because Justice Scalia, in McCreary, used specific historical events to support his thesis, those events are analyzed to see if they were selected in a fair manner, and if they really stand for the proposition he claims.

Finally, in Part III, Justice Scalia’s brand of analysis is applied to his own Catholicism. It is shown that the United States of America was born of a literal hatred for Catholics, which was pervasive and persistent. One may well conclude, therefore, that under his approach, the Establishment Clause permits the disregard of his own religion.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1594374 (Click on “One-Click Download” once you follow this link to download the entire document.)

A video describing some of the religious and secular rationale behind American Sunday blue laws.

In a floor speech, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe noted that while the Senate voted last week against reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, it approved another amendment saying federal regulators should promote diversity in media ownership and ensure that broadcasters operate in the public interest.

Inhofe warned those are vague standards that could be used by opponents of Christian stations’ religious message or stands on moral and political issues.

The Oklahoma senator said, “The chilling effect that the mere threat of a lawsuit will have on religious broadcasters could be substantial.”

Read more.

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.

Thomas Nelson Publishers has published a new book objectively presenting Barack’s faith. This video introduces the book. Many voters question Obama’s authenticity and beliefs, both religious and political, and how the two intertwine. According to Stephen Mansfield, the author of this book, Barack is “raising the banner of what he hopes will be the faith-based politics of a new generation . . . and he will carry that banner to whatever heights of power his God and the American people allow.”

A portion of the proceeds of the sales of this book from the above link will go to support ReligiousLiberty.TV.

1. High approval ratings

With Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty apparently out of the running for McCain’s VP pick, speculation this morning turns to Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska.  Scratch that . . . News Just In – Sarah Palin IS McCain’s running mate.

Richard Land was interviewed by CBS News and the following exchange took place:

CBSNews.com: Who’s on the list of people mentioned for VP that you think would most excite Southern Baptists and other members of the conservative faith community?

Richard Land: Probably Governor Palin of Alaska, because she’s a person of strong faith. She just had her fifth child, a Downs Syndrome child. And there’s a wonderful quote that she gave about her baby, and the fact that she would never, ever consider having an abortion just because her child had Downs Syndrome. 

She’s strongly pro-life. She’s a virtual lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. She would ring so many bells. And I just think it would help with independents because she’s a woman. She’s a reform Governor. I think that, from what I hear, that would be the choice that would probably ring the most bells, along with Mike Huckabee, of course, who’s a Southern Baptist, along with Mike Huckabee, of course, who’s a Southern Baptist.

From: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/2008/08/leading-evangelical-says-palin-rings.html

As she is relatively new to the political world, only recently elected Governor of Alaska, there is not a lot of information about her policies aside from her own personal beliefs.  Here is what Wikipedia users say about her background.

Family and personal background

Palin was born as Sarah Louise Heath in Sandpoint, Idaho, the daughter of Charles and Sally (Sheeran) Heath.^[3] Her family moved to Alaska when she was an infant.^[4] Charles Heath was a popular science teacher and coached track.^[4] The Heaths were avid outdoors enthusiasts; Sarah and her father would sometimes wake at 3 a.m. to hunt moose before school, and the family would regularly run 5k and 10k races.^[4]

Palin was the point guard and captain for the Wasilla High School Warriors, in Wasilla, Alaska, when they won the Alaska small-school basketball championship in 1982; she earned the nickname “Sarah Barracuda” because of her intense play.^[4] She played the championship game despite a stress fracture in her ankle, hitting a critical free throw in the last seconds.^[4] Palin, who was also the head of the school Fellowship of Christian Athletes, would lead the team in prayer before games.^[4]

In 1984, Palin was second-place in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant after winning the Miss Wasilla contest earlier that year, winning a scholarship to help pay her way through college.^[4][5] In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality.

Details of Palin’s personal life have contributed to her political image. She hunts, eats moose burgers, ice fishes, rides snowmobiles, and owns a float plane.^[6][7] Palin holds a lifetime membership with the National Rifle Association. She admits that she used marijuana when it was legal in Alaska, but says that she did not like it.^[8]

Palin holds a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Idaho where she also minored in politics. She briefly worked as a sports reporter for local Anchorage television stations while also working as a commercial fisherman with her husband, Todd, her high school sweetheart.^[4] One summer when she was working on Todd’s fishing boat, the boat collided with a tender while she was holding onto the railing; Palin broke several fingers.^[4] Outside the fishing season, Todd works for BP at an oil field on the North Slope^[9] and is a champion snowmobiler, winning the 2000-mile “Iron Dog” race four times.^[4] The two eloped shortly after Palin graduated college; when they learned they needed witnesses for the civil ceremony, they recruited two residents from the old-age home down the street.^[4] Todd is a Native Yup’ik Eskimo.^[4] The Palin family lives in Wasilla, about 40 miles (64 km) north of Anchorage.^[10]

On September 11, 2007, the Palins’ son Track joined the Army. Eighteen years old at the time, he is the eldest of Palin’s five children.^[10] Track now serves in an infantry brigade and will be deployed to Iraq in September. She also has three daughters: Bristol, 17, Willow, 13, and Piper, 7.^[11] On April 18, 2008, Palin gave birth to her second son, Trig Paxson Van Palin, who has Down syndrome.^[12] She returned to the office three days after giving birth.^[13] Palin refused to let the results of prenatal genetic testing change her decision to have the baby. “I’m looking at him right now, and I see perfection,” Palin said. “Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?”^[13]

High approval ratings

In July 2007, Palin had an approval rating often in the 90s.^[6] A poll published by Hays Research on July 28, 2008 showed Palin’s approval rating at 80%. ^[54]

Click on “Open Tools” for a transcript and index. 

Recorded in May 2007, Delaware Senator and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden discusses the role of religion in American society, and gives his thoughts on the separation between church and state.

In a year when religious views seem to be shaping public discourse and ultimately impacting the law, this short excerpt from a classic religious work seems particularly relevant.  ReligiousLiberty.TV publishes articles from a wide variety of political viewpoints and faith perspectives.  Freedom can be celebrated from a secular perspective as well from a religious perspective. Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.

Editor

———————–

By Ellen G. White, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing

“Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye?” Matthew 7:3.

Even the sentence, “Thou that judgest doest the same things,” does not reach the magnitude of his sin who presumes to criticize and condemn his brother. Jesus said, “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

His words describe one who is swift to discern a defect in others. When he thinks he has detected a flaw in the character or the life he is exceedingly zealous in trying to point it out; but Jesus declares that the very trait of character developed in doing this un-Christlike work, is, in comparison with the fault criticized, as a beam in proportion to a mote. It is one’s own lack of the spirit of forbearance and love that leads him to make a world of an atom. Those who have never experienced the contrition of an entire surrender to Christ do not in their life make manifest the softening influence of the Saviour’s love. They misrepresent the gentle, courteous spirit of the gospel and wound precious souls, for whom Christ died. According to the figure that our Saviour uses, he who indulges a censorious spirit is guilty of greater sin than is the one he accuses, for he not only commits the same sin, but adds to it conceit and censoriousness.

When men indulge this accusing spirit, they are not satisfied with pointing out what they suppose to be a defect in their brother. If milder means fail of making him do what they think ought to be done, they will resort to compulsion.

Christ is the only true standard of character, and he who sets himself up as a standard for others is putting himself in the place of Christ. And since the Father “hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22), whoever presumes to judge the motives of others is again usurping the prerogative of the Son of God. These would-be judges and critics are placing themselves on the side of antichrist, “who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

The sin that leads to the most unhappy results is the cold, critical, unforgiving spirit that characterizes Pharisaism. When the religious experience is devoid of love, Jesus is not there; the sunshine of His presence is not there. No busy activity or Christless zeal can supply the lack. There may be a wonderful keenness of perception to discover the defects of others; but to everyone who indulges this spirit, Jesus says, “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” He who is guilty of wrong is the first to suspect wrong. By condemning another he is trying to conceal or excuse the evil of his own heart. It was through sin that men gained the knowledge of evil; no sooner had the first pair sinned than they began to accuse each other; and this is what human nature will inevitably do when uncontrolled by the grace of Christ.

When men indulge this accusing spirit, they are not satisfied with pointing out what they suppose to be a defect in their brother. If milder means fail of making him do what they think ought to be done, they will resort to compulsion. Just as far as lies in their power they will force men to comply with their ideas of what is right. This is what the religious leaders did in the days of Christ and what the church has done ever since whenever she has lost the grace of Christ. Finding herself destitute of the power of love, she has reached out for the strong arm of the state to enforce her dogmas and execute her decrees. Here is the secret of all religious laws that have ever been enacted, and the secret of all persecution from the days of Abel to our own time.

Finding herself destitute of the power of love, she has reached out for the strong arm of the state to enforce her dogmas and execute her decrees. Here is the secret of all religious laws that have ever been enacted, and the secret of all persecution from the days of Abel to our own time.

Christ does not drive but draws men unto Him. The only compulsion which He employs is the constraint of love. When the church begins to seek for the support of secular power, it is evident that she is devoid of the power of Christ–the constraint of divine love.

But the difficulty lies with the individual members of the church, and it is here that the cure must be wrought. Jesus bids the accuser first cast the beam out of his own eye, renounce his censorious spirit, confess and forsake his own sin, before trying to correct others. For “a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” Luke 6:43. This accusing spirit which you indulge is evil fruit, and shows that the tree is evil. It is useless for you to build yourselves up in self-righteousness. What you need is a change of heart. You must have this experience before you are fitted to correct others; for “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Matthew 12:34.

When a crisis comes in the life of any soul, and you attempt to give counsel or admonition, your words will have only the weight of influence for good that your own example and spirit have gained for you. You must be good before you can do good. You cannot exert an influence that will transform others until your own heart has been humbled and refined and made tender by the grace of Christ. When this change has been wrought in you, it will be as natural for you to live to bless others as it is for the rosebush to yield its fragrant bloom or the vine its purple clusters.

If Christ is in you “the hope of glory,” you will have no disposition to watch others, to expose their errors. Instead of seeking to accuse and condemn, it will be your object to help, to bless, and to save. In dealing with those who are in error, you will heed the injunction, Consider “thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Galatians 6:1. You will call to mind the many times you have erred and how hard it was to find the right way when you had once left it. You will not push your brother into greater darkness, but with a heart full of pity will tell him of his danger.

He who looks often upon the cross of Calvary, remembering that his sins placed the Saviour there, will never try to estimate the degree of his guilt in comparison with that of others. He will not climb upon the judgment seat to bring accusation against another. There can be no spirit of criticism or self-exaltation on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary’s cross.

Not until you feel that you could sacrifice your own self-dignity, and even lay down your life in order to save an erring brother, have you cast the beam out of your own eye so that you are prepared to help your brother. Then you can approach him and touch his heart. No one has ever been reclaimed from a wrong position by censure and reproach; but many have thus been driven from Christ and led to seal their hearts against conviction. A tender spirit, a gentle, winning deportment, may save the erring and hide a multitude of sins. The revelation of Christ in your own character will have a transforming power upon all with whom you come in contact. Let Christ be daily made manifest in you, and He will reveal through you the creative energy of How word–a gentle, persuasive, yet mighty influence to re-create other souls in the beauty of the Lord our God.

Excerpted from Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, pages 125-129

Read the whole work at http://www.egwtext.WhiteEstate.org/mb/mb6.html

By Gregory W. Hamilton^©

August 5, 2008

It is not just the Pope who is drawing hundreds of thousands, with throngs pressing all about to get a glimpse of him, and maybe even a touch of his hand. During his media saturated whirlwind tour of the Middle East and Europe, Illinois Senator Barack Obama drew a wildly enthusiastic crowd of over 200,000 to the Victory Column (the Siegessäule) in Berlin, Germany’s Tiergarten Park.

Obama’s speech was a classic “kumbaya moment” in which he proposed a “why can’t we all just get along” group hug involving Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, its sponsored Hezbollah and Hamas terrorist organizations, the Palestinians, Israel, and Western nations, as one means, among many, of solving the global war on terrorism and saving the world.[1] Realistic or not, it was effective in Europe but short-lived in terms of political poll numbers and influence back home.[2]

Not unlike Pope Benedict XVI’s reason for employing his reform-minded slogan of “faith and reason,” this year’s cast of presidential candidates offer “hope and change,” with both promising to rescue our country and the world from the apparent brink of disaster—economically, militarily, spiritually, and environmentally.

The world we enter in 2008 is radically different than 2000, or even 2004. It seems that the world is spinning out of control with escalating oil prices, crumbling financial infrastructure, moral decay, the threat of terrorism and global climate catastrophe. Americans are looking for a savior they can see and touch; a political savior who can deliver our country and the world from this growing turmoil.

Obamafest

It may seem like a stretch to describe a candidate as a literary “Christ figure,” but so pronounced has this savior-like phenomenon become, that Senator Barack Obama was caricatured on the front cover of The New Republic magazine as a Saint with a large glowing halo behind his head, and with his hand and forefingers bent forward as if he were blessing the planet.

Superimposed behind this amazing civil-religious image was the United States flag, unfurled in all its glory, subliminally reinforcing in propaganda-like proportions that history had foreordained Barack Obama to save us from an eight-year nightmare and, as the next leader of the free world, guide it into the Promised Land.

Unlike other magazines, which have caricaturized Senator Obama as a Muslim in an attempt to disparage conspiracy theories that claim he is a secret Muslim and sympathizer, the editors of The New Republic explicitly fawned over him, even designating him to be the next JFK.[3]

A month later, British-based Economist magazine pictured him in a rock star mode before a huge crowd at a stadium with the caption: “But could he deliver?”[4] Whether he can or not is missing the point: Obama’s sunny innocence, youth, and optimism is contagious because he seems to be genuinely honest and sincere, uncorrupted by the insider world of politics. This is apparently what he means by the promise of “hope and change.” He is the proposed change, not any specific policy proposal. Politically, this is his drawing card. This is what attracts so many to him.[5] History demonstrates that elections are not won on substance, but personality and smart sound bites. “Hope and change” is simply enough during times of seeming hopelessness and despair.[6]

History and Reality

Americans and the world have been witnessing a passionate revival of an all-American four-year tradition known as the “race for the White House.” This election season, history will be made. Barring some major gaffe or damaging revelation, polls indicate that there is a reasonable chance that an African American will serve as the next President of the United States. Or the first Vietnam veteran, a War hero, will be President.

Both offer strengths and weaknesses when it comes to their foreign and domestic policy proposals. For the purposes of this article, their respective foreign policy approaches and the influences shaping these approaches will be our focus.

Foreign policy is an area of concern that we need to be aware of and understand during this election season.

Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy

Aside from Barack Obama’s statement that he did not vote in favor of invading Iraq, and promising to withdraw all American troops within 16-months after being elected, he has not said much. Yet there are clues that are consistent with his Christian faith.

Obama states on his campaign website, www.barackobama.com, that he “is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.” Underlying this approach is a religious component.

One of Barack Obama’s foreign policy and campaign advisors is former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Her book, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs, promotes a movement toward religious and political ecumenism. She proposes drafting the world’s leading religious leaders, including the Pope and his worldwide diplomatic corps, as diplomats at a higher level than even the state departments of Western countries currently recognize.[7] She also advocates diplomatic engagement instead of the use of force to achieve America’s goals with rogue nations, such as Iran. Based on her years of professional experience, she believes that direct diplomacy breaks down barriers better than isolation and builds relationships through mutual understanding, utilizing the proven Reagan doctrine of “trust but verify.” During the Reagan presidency, this was code language for using covert military operations in the attempt to force rogue nations to accept democratic reform and thus democratic governmental rule. “Engagement,” therefore, “is not appeasement,” she says.[8]

Fareed Zakaria is another advisor. In his book Post American World, Zakaria praises Obama for his vision of strengthening America’s infrastructure, and working with cultural and religious realities in various parts of the world as the best long term way to deal with terrorism. Equipping the nation’s ability to quickly bounce back, economically, diplomatically, and culturally from a terrorist attack is equally as important as preventing an attack, he argues, and is the best way to win back alienated nations and to enlist their support for mutual long term prosperity and security.[9]

Religion, according to a growing chorus of thought leaders, is the missing dimension of statecraft.[10] The idea is to bring together religious leaders from around the world to dialogue and formulate ways to make religion a force for good, with the ultimate goal of world peace. Many see Rome as the originator of this approach—with its unique and powerful mix of sovereign nation status along with being the most powerful church on earth.[11]

Coincidentally, this ecumenical model was revived by the advents of President Jimmy Carter (elected in 1976)[12] and Pope John Paul II (elected in 1978),[13] who both emphasized this approach in theory and practice throughout their lifetimes. Their legacy has been revived, in part, by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his newly established Faith Foundation.[14]

Another striking example of this approach is in The Review of Faith and International Affairs, a quarterly with ecumenical, non-partisan mission intentions. It is an academic journal in which well-known scholars, conservative and liberal, Protestant and Catholic, call upon the U.S. State Department to shape foreign policy around the strategic values of faith, particularly human rights and religious freedom.[15]

This ecumenical model, which fits nicely with his belief in “tough, direct presidential diplomacy,” is the foreign policy model that Barack Obama hopes to build on if he wins in November. Obama’s approach to foreign policy, however, possesses the same potential temptations and pitfalls to foreign policy as John McCain’s, particularly in regard to any real connection to Rome’s increasing involvement in U.S. foreign policy. The difference is that McCain accepts the explicit risks involved. Obama’s approach is less developed.

McCain’s League of Democracies

Enter John McCain. A Vietnam War hero, and a former graduate student of the National War Academy, he is praised by some in the conservative press as the visionary savior of advancing U.S. and international freedom—a tried and steady hand who offers wisdom, foresight and true leadership experience in both domestic and foreign policy matters.[16] However, one of his proposals, while backed by extensive foreign policy experience, is as dangerous as it is utopic,[17] particularly when viewed from a prophetic perspective.

In the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Senator McCain proposed that “democratic nations should be linked in one common organization: a worldwide League of Democracies.” He promised that “If I am elected president, during my first year in office I will call a summit of the world’s democracies to seek the views of my counterparts and explore the steps necessary to realize this vision.” McCain’s goals: 1) “Harnessing the political and moral advantages offered by united democratic action;” 2) “bringing concerted pressure to bear on tyrants;” and 3) “defeating radical Islamists.” McCain emphasizes that steps two and three involve the options of using economic sanctions or necessary military force to achieve these goals. In a speech in Los Angeles he noted that there were “one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”[18]

Since the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003, a number of liberal and conservative foreign policy experts, for varying reasons, have been urging this novel idea.[19] With the exception of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was recently praised by G8 leaders in Japan for their aggressive monitoring of Iran’s nuclear ambitions,[20] the perception has been growing that the United Nations (UN), including the UN Security Council, is ineffective, has lost its focus and will, and has no tangible power or authority to affect peace or justice throughout the world. They say it has been hijacked by member nations who have little or no interest in promoting democratic reform or freedom.[21]

A League of Democracies would take decades to develop,[22] but as a convenient substitute, the United States has begun expanding and using the previously limited Cold War prerogatives of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in Afghanistan, Iraq, Darfur, including a proposed missile defense shield in the Middle East.[23]

This is significant, because unlike the United Nations, such an institution would not be limited to economic sanctions but could actually use military force to achieve its objectives for world peace.

But there is more. Proponents argue that it would be the most effective method of peacefully pressuring rogue and developing nations to adopt democratic reforms and put religious freedom on the fast track in cooperation with the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). According to Allen Hertzke, Presidential Professor of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma, advocates of this plan have been determined to “expose, shame, and potentially punish nations that violate the rights of religious believers.” Economic sanctions alone “reflected a lack of trust in routine diplomacy” to ensure compliance. Until the advent of the Bush Administration—with the exception of former Secretary of State Colin Powell—this approach differs significantly from the U.S. State Department’s traditional tendency of using the sensitized “go slow” diplomatic and ecumenical engagement efforts of the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for international religious freedom, which is the approach that Senator Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright champion as discussed earlier.[24]

In May, Senator McCain announced that He would make freedom of religion a key foreign policy issue if elected to the White House in November. He stated emphatically that “No society that denies religious freedom can ever rightly claim to be good in some other way.”[25]

In a speech given on another occasion, Senator McCain focused on America’s moral obligation—its so-called manifest destiny, a crusade if you will—to export religious freedom, and freedom in general, as a matter of foreign policy principle. His proposal was put forward in terms of benevolence and transparency, with no hidden agenda. “America truly is not like past superpowers, countries who sought territorial gain or imperial dominion.” Instead, he said, “We wish to free, not to enslave; to trade, not to steal; to enlighten and learn, not to dominate and convert.”[26]

McCain can legitimately make this claim. As Allen Hertzke explains, “Because virtually all of the globe’s nations are signatories to the Universal Declaration [of Human Rights] and subsequent covenants, U.S. officials legitimately can claim that they are not attempting to impose ‘our values’ on the rest of the world. Rather, in implementing IRFA [International Religious Freedom Act] the United States is merely calling upon other nations to live up to covenants they have approved.”[27]

In this context, McCain went on to argue that “Our moral standing is directly tied to our ability to maintain America’s preeminent leadership in the world.” Isolation and leadership by example are no longer sufficient: “The object of American power should not be limited to our own protection and economic self-interest.” Instead, he said, “We must seek a better world, one respectful of the rights we believe to be the universal province of all people. To do less would not simply threaten the very interests we seek to protect; it would also mean abdicating American leadership at this unique moment in history.”[28]

After the events of 9/11, Economist magazine made an interesting observation: “Terrorism against American interests ‘over there’ should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America ‘over here.’ America’s homeland is, in fact, ‘the planet.’”[29] This helps to also sum up the assumed and internationally recognized role of the United States when it comes to religious freedom and human rights around the world: protagonist and enforcer (i.e., the world’s champion advocate and policeman). Indeed, America’s homeland has become the planet. In this sense, Senator McCain has a legitimate argument: a self-imposed isolation would not be possible. We are stuck in the unenviable position of being both loved and hated. There is no turning back. From a prophetic perspective, we are at once both “lamblike” and “dragon-like.”[30]

Just recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered a startling revelation in an essay in Foreign Affairs demonstrating just how far such policy thinking had progressed since 9/11 when she discussed the strategic connection between Iraq, democratic reform in the Middle East, and religious freedom. She wrote: “The democratization of Iraq and the democratization of the Middle East were linked. So, too, was the war on terror linked to Iraq, because our goal after September 11 was to address the deeper malignancies of the Middle East, not just the symptoms of them.”[31]

The “malignancies” Secretary Rice referred to was how best to manage and unite Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, and exterminate religious fanatics, namely Al-Qaeda operatives, in behalf of world peace. “In the long term,” she argued, “our [national] security is best ensured by the success of our ideals: religious freedom, human rights, open markets, democracy, and the rule of law.”[32] This is exactly John McCain’s argument.

Circling the Wagons

Most people do not comprehend the larger strategy: a three-step process of democratization, religious freedom, and proselytization; using peaceful diplomatic means, and short of that, force, to achieve its ends. It has a decided “missionary” component, with the tanks circling not to defend but to intimidate and coerce all those who work against world unity.

The circling of the religious and political wagons (i.e., “tanks”) can be seen in the anxious, threatening July 29 press release by Abu Yahya al Libi, a close associate of Al Qaeda’s leader Osama bin Laden. Catholic World News reported that al Libi called for the death of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah for making an ecumenical pact with Pope Benedict XVI in November (2007) and allowing the Roman Catholic Church to build several cathedrals in Saudi Arabia.[33]

Certainly, the moral force to bear on such extremists is clearly warranted. But where does it ultimately lead, and when does it end? Good intentions are one thing, but as Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”[34]

The use of force in addition to the use of diplomatic “big sticks” to bring about religious freedom in lands that propagate terrorism and terrorists may sound good to us now because we are not the target, and it keeps us comfortable and secure. But prophetically speaking, the growing trend of uniting ecumenically and politically to achieve this goal—whether coming from Rome, from the leaders of our country, or both—carries with it the seeds of democratic dictatorship and intolerance in its train—not true religious freedom as we understand it today, despite the glowing rhetoric of religious freedom and human rights increasingly attached to it. E.G. White, a prominent 19^th and early 20^th-century Protestant reformer, once wrote about the coming circling of the wagons: “Foreign nations will follow the example of the United States. Though she leads out, yet the same crisis will come upon our people in all parts of the world.”[35]

In context of making void God’s law by forcing American citizens and the world to worship on Sunday instead of the true Sabbath, White also wrote that “The nation will be on the side of the great rebel leader.”[36] It would not be surprising if a religious worship law—national and universal—is decreed in the name of both preserving the peace, security, and common good (or “ecumenical” good) of the world (i.e., in the name of world peace and security). Tolerance instead of religious freedom is the new word of choice these days. It is even being argued today that tolerance and religious freedom are ideals that are only as strong as peace and security. To secure the one—peace and security—is to secure the other—unity and religious tolerance. In the meantime, religious freedom as a guarantee is conveniently lost along the way.

Exporting religious freedom abroad by force is doing the same in the spirit of coercion—the very spirit of the dragon found in Revelation 13:11, and paradoxically a pattern throughout Revelation 13 in which powers that appear to have holy agendas are dragon-like in spirit, using dragon-like methods.[37] It seemed so right after 9/11 because we had been attacked. But it is, in fact, an ideal that cannot be morally sustained. It is wrongheaded.

In this sense, when it comes to foreign policy, the spirit of Protestantism in America has yielded to the Catholic spirit of forced uniformity for the sake of international unity, peace, and security. In other words, defining religious freedom in terms of ecumenical and political unity for the sake of international cohesion is not true religious freedom. It is the spirit of coercion.

True religious freedom cannot be equated with “unity.” It is the right to dissent—yea, to “protest”—which was the very spirit and foundation of the Protestant Reformation and the American Constitutional Revolution. That definition is changing as Rome is reshaping American domestic and foreign policy to fit its own religious and political ideals.

Rome, John McCain, and U.S. Foreign Policy

With the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005, Rome began an unofficial policy role reversal by quietly backing progress by the United States in bringing about democratic reform in Iraq and the Middle East.

When Francis Rooney became U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican in November of 2005, he told Catholic News Service that the war in Iraq had moved into the category of “shared objectives,” and away from strong opposition by the Vatican during the waning years of Pope John Paul’s Administration. He announced, “We’re in a new day here, with the Vatican and the United States supporting each other as we work together to support the people of Iraq.” In regard to nation-building, he said, “the Holy See is there to lend its voice of support, in developing a free, particularly religiously free, country that is based upon freedom and democratic principles.”[38]

There are three reasons for this policy change. First, Rome seeks to ride the wave of democratic power exhibited by the United States since the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union[39] and particularly since the 9/11 threat of Islamic Fundamentalism and Osama bin Laden. Prior to Pope Benedict’s recent visit to the U.S., Brad Minor of Newsmax magazine observed that “As the world’s last global superpower, American political hegemony can help the Church’s global efforts.”[40] Indeed, Miner’s description unwittingly harmonizes with Revelation 17’s depiction of the harlot (i.e., the Church of Rome) riding a beast symbolizing Rome’s return to its historic and corrupting political-power sharing role—if not a controlling one—with the kings of the earth, but this time with the last superpower nation depicted in Bible prophecy, the United States of America.[41]

The second is to express in subtle but specific diplomatic words and actions—official and unofficial—that it buys into the developing U.S. foreign policy strategy of benevolently forcing failed nations—through all three methods, diplomatic (including ecumenical) pressure, economic sanctions, and military force (whatever works)—to adopt major democratic reforms as a means of being accepted into the world community. The national and international security interests of the United States are in the strategic interests of Rome. These shared interests were manifested in “diplomatic speak” during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the United States in April, and particularly during his visit to the White House on his 81^st birthday. The official Web site of the White House posted a welcome message to “His Holiness” by President and Mrs. Bush. In a brief message, the First Couple announced: “The President and the Holy Father will continue discussions, which began during the President’s visit to the Vatican in June 2007, on their common commitment to the importance of faith and reason in reaching shared goals.” “These goals,” they said, “include advancing peace throughout the Middle East and other troubled regions, promoting interfaith understanding, and strengthening human rights and freedom, especially religious liberty, around the world.”[42] John McCain also welcomed Benedict by praising him as “the most influential advocate for peace and faith in the lives of millions of Americans, and for millions more” throughout the world.[43]

As Richard John Neuhaus of the evangelical Catholic journal First Things observed during the Pope’s American tour, Benedict quietly affirmed “the connection between a nation’s sovereignty and its duty to protect its citizens.” In reflecting on the Pope’s unexpected affirmation of this aspect of U.S. foreign policy and the global war on terrorism, Neuhaus argued that this “entails the” corresponding “obligation of outside intervention when a nation defaults on that duty.”[44] If Neuhaus’ assessment is correct, it would reinforce Senator McCain’s League of Democracies proposal and a continuation of the preemptive foreign policy track of Secretary of State Rice and the Bush Administration.

Economist magazine recently reported that Rome has been dispatching its historic diplomatic consulting services more aggressively through its international cadre of diplomats, which are now stationed in 176 countries, many of them democratic. While there is no doubt that Rome is ready to work with Senator Obama with his strictly diplomatic and ecumenical foreign policy strategies if he should become president, Senator McCain is, in this sense, definitely more in-sync with Rome and its current policy role reversal in his overall foreign policy goals. In comparison with Senator Obama’s “savior” persona, this is significant, because, philosophically, John McCain’s candidacy potentially comes attached with a much more powerful would-be “savior,” or ally.

Which brings us to the third motive: the day before the Pope arrived in the United States for his whirlwind tour in April, Harvard Constitutional Law professor and newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, Mary Ann Glendon, confirmed this dramatic shift between Pope John Paul II’s opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Pope Benedict XVI’s new position. Benedict, according to Glendon, is fully supportive of U.S. efforts to bring about democratic reform in Iraq and the Middle East, despite “some initial disagreement” between the Vatican and the U.S. regarding the war there.[45]

As Brad Miner points out, this was because Benedict is interested in protecting the fledgling Catholic Church, as well as all other Christians. The Pope has expressed concerns for the inequality that allows Muslims to worship freely and propagate their faith in Western countries, while Muslim countries do not allow Christians to thrive in the same way.[46] This is an argument that John McCain has consistently used, an argument that is sure to gain traction throughout the world over time. In a rather revealing, yet simplistic, slip of the tongue, Miner stated that “The Pope’s visit to America also has strategic importance, as the Church races to solidify its position against Islam worldwide.”[47]

What did Miner mean by this statement? Is Rome against Islam as a general rule? For competitive reasons, the answer is yes. For example, Miner observes, “As the power of the Communist Party [in China] wanes as many predict it will, the vacuum it leaves will have to be filled by something, and, as in other parts of Asia, that will probably be either Catholicism or Islam. The Pope knows this.”[48] Indeed, the Catholic Church is in a high stakes competition to cut off Islam at the pass.

This resurgence of Rome’s historic diplomacy to modify existing governments to encourage stronger nations to modify weaker ones is remarkable. In other words, bringing about religious freedom through the use of multilateral democratic forces is exactly the kind of “just war” thinking that is gaining ground among some of the world’s most influential thought leaders, independent of McCain’s electoral fortunes. (See McCain’s official campaign website: www.johnmccain.com.)

According to Foreign Affairs,[49] a book that has been widely influential in 2008 is Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism: A Call to Action, by George Weigel, a prominent Catholic journalist and theologian, and the official Vatican biographer of Pope John Paul II. Like Pope Benedict XVI, his message emphasizes the importance of saving Christian Civilization from the forces of Islamic fundamentalism. Weigel’s book is endorsed by influential academics and thought leaders, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and former Senator Sam Nunn; Senator Joseph Lieberman, Fouad Ajami, Director of Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and R. James Woolsey, former CIA Director; William Kristol, panelist on FOX News Sunday and editor of The Weekly Standard, and Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek magazine.[50] McCain has not endorsed it, yet not surprisingly some of the same gentlemen endorsing Weigel’s book are some of McCain’s leading foreign policy advisors on the campaign trail.

Although subtly nuanced, it is truly the first politically and academically sanctioned call for a modern-day Crusade, not necessarily militarily, but ideally. It proposes that the United States and its Western allies rediscover Pope Benedict XVI’s call to “faith and reason” in achieving world peace and abandon the dead end secularist road toward what he terms the “dictatorship of relativism.” Weigel argues that a united Roman Catholic front is poised to lead the way to defeat radical Islamism through diplomatic dialogue with moderate Islamists, which they are already doing, to discuss the need to educate their young toward the abandonment of violence and to accept reason as a guide to faith. This goal of peace may sound benevolent, but for Weigel, radical Islamists cannot win, or even have an equal shot at self-governance. For Weigel, Islam itself is inherently violent and unreasonable because it is guided by a messianic insistence on world dominance.[51] Dar al-Harb means “House of War,” or territories outside of Muslim rule. Dar al-Islam means “House of Peace,” or territories under Islamic law. Combine the two logically, and what you have is what Pulitzer Prize-winning historian David Levering Lewis describes in his book God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215, as the traditional Islamic concept that “War is the health of the state.”[52] Starved of war, Weigel argues, Islam as we know it will either be transformed or it will cease to exist as a viable entity.[53]

As Islam is unlikely to concede this struggle, there is an underlying doctrine, if you will, of “eternal warfare,” that represents a state of mind and heart among jihadists. They believe that force must be used to convert others outside of Islam and to establish Islamic world dominance. This is what Weigel understands, this is what the Pope believes, and this is how George W. Bush, John McCain, and the leaders of the Western world now proceed. No matter how much it is “danced” around, they believe that radical fundamentalist Islamists are the roadblock in the march toward world peace.

As Adam Garfinkle points out in “Culture and Deterrence,” “In the war against global Jihadism, deterrence strategies [such as diplomatic appeasement or the Cold War nuclear doctrine of mutually assured destruction] are unlikely to be effective [against such an enemy], because it is almost impossible to deter those who are committed to their own martyrdom.” He points out that Iran’s eleventh-grade textbooks teach that “in the coming era-ending war against the infidels, Muslims cannot lose: ‘Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shall shake one another’s hand at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, success and victory are ours.’” As Garfinkle argues, “How does one deter people who…are willing and even eager…to turn their country and their entire religious sect into a suicide bomb?”[54]

Summary

We have identified several ways in which the candidates’ foreign policy views may be problematic, though not immediately, for religious minorities and others in the U.S. and countries around the world.

John McCain’s proposal of a League of Democracies to bring about “freedom from oppression” is worrisome, because when international majoritarian rule is backed by military force, it could easily become a persecuting power if it chose to continually redefine “religious extremism” and “extremists” beyond Islamic terrorists. Barack Obama’s ecumenical “kumbaya” approach is equally troubling, because the ecumenical movement, when used for political peace-making ends and attached to Vatican advisement, also carries with it the inherent seeds of discrimination, intolerance, and persecution of minority religions. The Ecumenical Movement is a “sleeper movement” and converges with our country’s inevitable dragon speak in Revelation 13.

It should be noted that John McCain did not initiate his proposed League of Democracies. It is an outgrowth of President George W. Bush’s ad hoc coalition of democratic nations during the advent and aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Nor did Senator Obama originate the ecumenical approach, which for some conservative Republicans is naïve and tantamount to diplomatic appeasement. George Weigel’s approach combines both McCain’s and Obama’s approaches. But the new president elect in November may manage U.S. foreign policy in new and potentially troubling ways, as has been evident in recent years. We cannot place blame on any one President or individual leader. Such movements are bigger and more powerful than the candidates themselves.

This article demonstrates that foreign policy has become an increasing concern in the light of Bible prophecy. For many Christians, the events of 9/11 should cause us to remember that while Supreme Court appointments often influence the interpretation of our laws for years after a presidential term, a President’s foreign policy initiatives affects a much wider sphere of influence and in turn could imperceptibly force America to compromise its unique religious freedom guarantees by accepting foreign standards—the once discarded Roman Catholic and European standards of tolerance and ecumenical uniformity, or religious and political majoritarianism, in which minorities were merely tolerated and even persecuted for their faith.

More importantly, we should resist voting based on charisma, party loyalty, race, or sound bites. We look for a Savior, but One not of this world. Let God’s grace, a fervent study of God’s Word, and an understanding of the true nature of Christ’s kingdom, guide you constantly during these exciting and fearful times.

Gregory W. Hamilton is president of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, located in Ridgefield, Washington. The Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) is a legislative advocacy and workplace mediation services program, representing the constitutional and workplace discrimination concerns of all people of faith in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. For more information, visit their Web site at www.nrla.com.

ENDNOTES

[1] “Obama’s Speech in Berlin,” Transcript release by The New York Times, July 24, 2008.

[2] Steven Erlanger, “Obama, Vague on Issues, Pleases Crowd in Europe,” The New York Times, July 25, 2008. See also David Brooks, “Playing Innocent Abroad,” The New York Times, July 25, 2008, in which Brooks called Obama’s speech anything but Kennedyesque or Reaganesque. He depicted it as an embarrassing and simplistic “kumbaya moment.” Brooks wrote: “Substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.”

[3] “The Trials of Barak Obama,” The New Republic, January 30, 2008.

[4] “But could he deliver?” The Economist February 16^th-22^nd 2008.

[5] William Kristol, “It’s All About Him,” The New York Times, February 25, 2008.

[6] Sharon Begley, “When It’s Head versus Heart, the Heart Wins,” Newsweek, February 11, 2008.

[7] Madeleine Albright, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs (New York: Harper Perennial, 2007).

[8] “Madeleine Albright explains her support for Barack Obama” with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, You Tube, June 24, 2008. Much of Obama’s foreign policy philosophy is detailed in The New Republic by Eli Lake in an article entitled “Contra Expectations: Obama isn’t Jimmy Carter—He’s Ronald Reagan,” July 30, 2008: 16-18. Barack Obama’s foreign policy is largely being shaped by Harvard professor Joseph Nye’s theory of “soft power.” See Joseph Nye’s three most recent works on this point: (1) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Public Affairs Books, 2004); (2) The Paradox of America Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); (3) The Powers to Lead (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

[9] Fareed Zakaria, The Post American World (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008). The entire book is applicable, but see particularly pages 254-255 in regard to Zakaria’s observation about how Senator Barack Obama would respond to another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. See also “Talk to Iran: The Christian message is reaching where diplomacy can’t,” A Christianity Today [Online] editorial, June 27, 2008: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/12.21.html.

[10] Douglas Johnston and Cynthia Sampson, eds., Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994). With Foreword by Jimmy Carter. See also Johan D van der Vyver and John Witte, Jr., eds., Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Legal Perspectives (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1996).

[11] “God’s Ambassadors,” Economist, July 19^th, 2007.

[12] See Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006). See also Our Endangered Values: America’s Moral Crisis (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2005); and Madeleine Albright’s aforementioned book, The Mighty and the Almighty: Reflections on America, God, and World Affairs, pages 37-52, 77-78, 142, 194. The Carter Center at Emory University is Jimmy and Roselyn Carter’s legacy. It is a non-profit organization that prevents and resolves conflicts using faith-based diplomacy methods, and appeals to human rights reform and development in foreign policy approaches. It seeks to enhance freedom and democracy, and the improvement of health around the world.

[13] Pope John Paul II’s insertion of faith into his foreign policy was staggering in its proportion and influence on world leaders. Popes have historically inserted the power of their seat to influence kings and emperors, but as Newsweek put it the week after Pope John Paul II’s death on April 2, 2005, “Under John Paul, the Holy See gained more political clout and diplomatic recognition than it had enjoyed since the Renaissance” (April 11, 2005). Economist magazine put it this way: “Over the past century—despite the march of secularism—the Vatican’s role in world affairs has expanded. In 1890 a famous English Catholic, Cardinal Manning, said the Holy See’s diplomatic activities were ‘a mere pageant,’ a medieval relic. He would be amazed to find that in 2007 papal diplomacy is more active than ever. The real explosion came under John Paul II. When he was elected in 1978, the Holy See had full ties with 85 states [i.e., countries]. When he died, the figure was 174. Among states that dropped their misgivings were Margaret Thatcher’s Britain, Ronald Reagan’s America and Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union. The Holy See now has full diplomatic relations with 176 states” (July 19, 2007). Indeed, the mortal political wound that Rome sustained in 1798, and described in Revelation 13 so vividly, seems to be healing rapidly since Vatican II and the advents of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. See John Paul’s Encyclical Letter of May 1, 1991, entitled “Centesimus Annus: On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum,” which was the first major statement on social doctrine by Rome since 1891, and played an enormously attractive role in getting the attention of world leaders to recognize the value of Rome, under John Paul’s leadership, in shaping the domestic and foreign policies of the world’s leading foreign governments, both great and small. See also Sister Mary Walsh’s editorial treatment of John Paul’s foreign policy legacy, From Pope John Paul II to Benedict XVI: An Inside Look at the End of an Era, the Beginning of a New One, and the Future of the Church (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005). I would be remiss to not include Malachi Martin’s The Keys to this Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990).

[14] For the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, go to http://tonyblairfaithfoundation.org.

[15] The Review of Faith & International Affairs. See Volume 6, Number 2, Summer 2008, an issue focusing on “Religious Freedom and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Again, see “Talk to Iran: The Christian message is reaching where diplomacy can’t,” A Christianity Today [Online] editorial, June 27, 2008: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/12.21.html.

[16] Evan Thomas, “What These Eyes Have Seen,” Newsweek, February 11, 2008. Thomas details the savior-like phenomena of Senator McCain to a certain segment of Republican conservatives, including Karl Rove, who see in McCain their only hope of advancing the foreign policy goals and gains of the Bush Administration.

[17] Matt Bai, “The McCain Doctrines,” The New York Times, May 18, 2008.

[18] John McCain, “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,” Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2007: 19-34. See also John B. Judis, “Back to the USSR: McCain’s plan for the next cold war,” The New Republic, July 30, 2008: 18-20. Senator McCain derives much of his proposal for a “League of Democracies,” and much of his foreign policy objectives from neo-conservative political thinker Robert Kagan, who has written three influential books in the last few years: (1) The Return of History and the End of Dreams (New York: Knopf Publishers, Inc., 2008); (2) Dangerous Nation: America’s Foreign Policy from its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the Twentieth Century (New York: Vintage Books, 2007); (3) Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (New York: Vintage Books, 2004). Robert Kagan specifically makes his argument and appeal for a League of Democracies with the following punctuated paragraph in his most recent book, The Return of History and the End of Dreams: “With the dreams of the post-Cold War era dissolving, the democratic world will have to decide how to respond. In recent years, as the autocracies of Russia and China have risen and the radical Islamists have waged their struggle, the democracies have been divided and distracted by issues both profound and petty. They have questioned their purpose and their morality, argued over power and ethics, and pointed to one another’s failings. Disunity has weakened and demoralized the democracies at a moment when they can least afford it. History has returned, and the democracies must come together to shape it, or others will shape it for them” (page 4). This disunity and inability to act decisively was recently showcased in August of 2008 when the United States, the European Union, and NATO failed to come to Georgia’s defense upon Russia’s military incursion into the heart of the breakaway region of Ossetia within Georgia.

[19] Thomas Carothers, “A League of Their Own,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2008: 44-49.

[20] See the International Atomic Energy Agency’s web site and the following article entitled “G8 Leaders Stress Safe, Peaceful Nuclear Development: Key IAEA Roles Singled Out in Summit Statements”: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/2008/g8leaders.html. See specifically the G8 leaders’ statement in the subsection of the article titled “Nuclear Non-Proliferation.”

[21] Carothers, “A League of Their Own,” Foreign Policy, July/August 2008: 49.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Condoleezza Rice, “Rethinking the National Interest: American Realism for a New World,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2008: 7. Senator McCain echoes this point in “An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,” 25-27.

[24] Allen D. Hertzke, “International Religious Freedom Policy: Taking Stock,” The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Summer 2008: 19. Professor Hertzke retells the history of the competing visions of the two bills (House and Senate) that proposed the International Religious Freedom Act, which was eventually passed in 1998 by an overwhelming majority in both chambers. He demonstrates how the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) was created as a compromise and designed as a separate and competing agency to the U.S. State Department and the efforts of their assigned U.S. Ambassadors-at-Large for international religious freedom. These two agencies are currently at “loggerheads” with each other, which, Hertzke explains, is the reason for the little progress made. This helps explain why USCIRF would benefit greatly from a League of Democracies proposed by Senator McCain, and how it flies in the face of Senator Obama’s ecumenical approach.

[25] Carlos Hamann, “McCain to make religious freedom a key foreign policy issue,” Yahoo! News in cooperation with Agence France Presse, May 7, 2008.

[26] “United States Senator McCain Tells Adventists America’s Leadership Tied to its Moral Standing,” Annual Liberty Banquet sponsored by Liberty magazine and the International Religious Freedom Association, May 6, 2006, Senate Caucus Room, Russell Senate Building, as reported by Adventist News Network. See http://www.irla.org/news/2006/may06.html for the transcript of Senator John McCain’s speech.

[27] Hertzke, 18. Other covenants include: 1) 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; 2) the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of all forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief.

[28] Ibid.

[29] The Economist, September 11, 2004, p. 32. The primary source for this quote can be found in The 9/11 Commission Report, 362.

[30] See Revelation 13:11, “Then I saw another beast, coming out of the earth. He had two horns like a lamb, but he spoke as a dragon. He exercised all the authority of the first beast….” New International Version.

[31] Rice, 14, 16.

[32] Ibid.

[33] “Al Qaida condemns Saudi ruler for interreligious dialogue,” Catholic World News, July 29, 2008.

[34] Quoted in Walter Isaacson, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003): 169. Robert Meyer wrote an Online column for Renew America on the fifth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, challenging the supposed misuse of Benjamin Franklin’s quote regarding governmental policies since then. See http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/meyer/060911. He wrote: “The basis assumption being promulgated by identifying with Franklin is that no tradeoffs of liberty for security are ever justified. Of course that idea is usually derived from using truncated versions of Franklin’s entire quote. Notice the phrase ‘essential liberty.’ I want to know what ‘essential liberty’ anyone has lost via any measure to heighten security in the wake of 9/11? Perhaps people have been inconvenienced, but scarcely more than that.” My arguments are regarding developing trends and likely future scenarios based on traditional Seventh-day Adventist biblical interpretations of Bible prophecy. Nothing more. Nor is it my focus to sympathize with the detention and torture of Islamic terrorists, or with those detained for suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

[35] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Volume 6 (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948): 394, 395.

[36] Ellen G. White, Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5 (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1948): 136.

[37] See Revelation 13:11 and all of chapter 13.

[38] “New U.S. Ambassador Bullish on U.S.-Vatican Relations,” Catholic News Service, November 15, 2005.

[39] See Malachi Martin’s book The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West.

[40] Brad Miner, “The Great Crusader: Benedict XVI fights for the Church in a changing world” (magazine cover title), “The Last Crusade” (article title), Newsmax, April 2008: 54.

[41] Again, this is reminiscent of the spirit and content of Malachi Martin’s book The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West published nineteen years ago.

[42] Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080215-1.html.

[43] Statement by John McCain On the Pope’s Visit to America, www.JohnMcCain.com, April 15, 2008.

[44] Richard John Neuhaus, “Benedict in America,” First Things, August/September 2008: 47.

[45] “U.S., Vatican Share Goals in Iraq, American Ambassador Says,” Catholic World News, March 26, 2008.

[46] Brad Miner, 62.

[47] Ibid., 61.

[48] Ibid., 62. See “Pope Benedict ask Chine to ‘open up’ to the Gospel,” Catholic News Agency, August 7, 2008. See also “China Blames Attack on Muslim Separatists” by Edward Wong and Andrew Jacobs, The New York Times, August 6, 2008.

[49] See the “Foreign Affairs Bestsellers” list in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs: 172.

[50] George Weigel, Faith, Reason, and the War against Jihadism: A Call to Action (New York: Doubleday, 2007).

[51] Ibid. The entire theme of Weigel’s book is predicated on Islam’s threat to the world community if not taken on appropriately—culturally, diplomatically, and militarily.

[52] David Levering Lewis, God’s Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2008): 101, 127. For an exhausting treatment of the history of the Crusades, see Christopher Tyerman, God’s War: A New History of the Crusades (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006): 1024 pages.

[53] Weigel, 11-106. See also Graham Fuller, “A World Without Islam,” Foreign Policy, January/February 2008: 46-53. See also “The Myth of Moderate Islam” by Steven A. Cook, Foreign Policy, June 2008, Web Exclusive: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4334.

[54] As quoted by Weigel, 95, 96. See also Adam Garfinkel, “Culture and Deterrence,” Foreign Policy Research Institute E-Notes, August 25, 2006, available at http://www.fpri.org. Again, see “The Myth of Moderate Islam” by Steven A. Cook, Foreign Policy, June 2008, Web Exclusive: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4334. Charles Malik, former President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, proposed an answer in 1979 at a pastors’ advisory committee in Arrowhead Springs, California. He said, “The only hope for the western world lies is an alliance between the Roman Catholic Church, which is the most commonly, influential, unifying element in Europe and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Rome must unite with Eastern Orthodoxy because the Eastern Orthodox Church controls the western Middle East [the east end of the Mediterranean], and if they don’t solidify that control, Islam will march across Europe. Islam is political. The only hope of the western world lies then, in a unified Europe under the control of the Pope. And then all Protestant Christians around the globe must come into submission to the Pope so we will have a united Christian world.” This may be an unreliable quote, but there is record of an eye-witness testimony in a sermon transcript given by John MacArthur, “The Rise and Fall of World Powers—The Rise and Fall of the World, Part II.” Found online at http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg27-8.htm. I have yet to find a single credible academic expert in Islam and Christianity, particularly as it pertains to the current so-called “Clash of Civilizations” who quotes Charles Malik.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93360158

Morning Edition, August 7, 2008 · On Aug. 16, Barack Obama and John McCain will appear together at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Valley Community Church in Lake Forest, Calif. Joint appearances by the presumed nominees of the major parties are rare, and this one shows that both parties are working hard to court the votes of white evangelical Christians.

Read more at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93360158

On Wednesday, July 23, 2008,  in Turner v. City Council of Fredericksburg, (4th Cir., July 23, 2008), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of appeals upheld the policy of Fredericksburg, Virginia’s city council requiring prayers which open its sessions to be non-denominational. In an opinion by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting by designation on the case, the court held that legislative prayer is government speech. The city’s policy was challenged by Hashmel Turner, a Baptist minister who was elected to city council. When his turn to offer an invocation came, Turner wanted to close by praying in the name of Jesus. The court held that council’s policy precluding such prayer violates neither the Establishment Clause nor Turner’s free exercise rights. The court concluded:

Turner was not forced to offer a prayer that violated his deeply-held religious beliefs. Instead, he was given the chance to pray on behalf of the government. Turner was unwilling to do so in the manner that the government had proscribed, but remains free to pray on his own behalf, in nongovernmental endeavors, in the manner dictated by his conscience. His First Amendment and Free Exercise rights have not been violated.

The full article is available in PDF format at http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/CRANE.WEBSITE.pdf

Here is a brief excerpt (citations available at the link):

Opponents of same-sex marriage propose to nationalize the definition of marriage through a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.1 Other, more federalist-minded defenders of traditional marriage express discomfort with a federal amendment and propose instead to constitutionalize the definition of marriage at the state level.2 Either way, most opponents of same-sex marriage are committed to state or federal constitutional reforms that define marriage traditionally, ostensibly on the grounds that a legal definition of marriage as heterosexual union is necessary to save the marital institution.

Curiously, the push to constitutionalize—to legalize and nationalize—the definition of marriage comes primarily from conservative religious communities, particularly Christianity and Judaism,3 whose traditions and theology are generally opposed to state intervention in the institution of marriage. Catholic tradition regards marriage as a spiritual estate or sacrament and hence the province of the church not the state. Protestant tradition, while expressing skepticism about the sacramentality of marriage, asserts that marriage has a highlyspiritual dimension that requires mediation by the church. Jewish tradition regards Jewish marriage as the province of Jewish law—Halakhah—and not of civil law. In neither the Jewish nor the Christian tradition is marriage understood as primarily the province of the state.

The current political movement against same-sex marriage threatens, perhaps unwittingly, these religious conceptualizations. By insisting that legally defining marriage is necessary to preserving the institution of marriage, these religious communities are implicitly acknowledging and confirming the state’s right to dictate the definition and contours of marriage. If a uniform legal definition is necessary to save marriage, it must be because marriage owes its legitimacy to the government. By pushing to legalize, even nationalize marriage, religious conservatives are reifying marriage as a legal, rather than religious, construct contrary to their conventional, religious view of marriage.

This essay presents a theological argument against the secular legalization of marriage and in favor of the secular privatization of marriage. It argues that the traditions of Judaism and Christianity understand marriage as an institution whose legitimacy derives not from the state but from the sanction of religious communities. As such, marriage is the province of religious communities, and not the state, and empowering the state to define marriage uniformly not only profanes a holy institution but threatens the ultimate autonomy and authority of religious communities with respect to marriage.

The full article is available in PDF format at http://www.cardozolawreview.com/PastIssues/CRANE.WEBSITE.pdf

Dr. Ravi Zacharias speaks out in support of religious freedom and against attempts to create theocracy.  He also tells a couple of very interesting stories about religious freedom in other countries.  It was recorded at a recent event at the Atlanta Civic Center and you might also recognize the event MC.  Ravi Zacharias answers a tough question about religious freedom- specifically the freedom to disbelieve- in other countries. From the DVD titled “Is America Really Christian.”

Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later.  While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education.  He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois.  Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years.  Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College in Kentucky.  He is presently Visiting Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.

See more at http://www.rzim.org/USA/Resources/Watch.aspx

Introduction/Story

Who are the children of God?

Who will inherit the kingdom of God?

These are the questions that are heavy on the minds of the Jewish people at the time Jesus begins his public ministry. There was a great debate between the various parties of the Jewish people about how God’s kingdom would finally be restored to Israel.

For the Pharisees, outward, ritual purity was the way to please God and facilitate God’s reign. For the Essenes, separation and isolation from the world was the way to usher in God’s kingdom. For the Saducees, practical accommodations needed to be made and so strategic partnership with the Roman Empire would be necessary to accomplish God’s ultimate ends. Finally, for the Zealots, violent revolution was the only way. Through military might the pagan empire would be cut down and God would reign, at last, in Jerusalem.

So, when Jesus began his public ministry with the words, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near,” he had everyone’s attention. Whose side would he take? Each of these ‘special interest groups’ wanted to claim this powerful teacher for themselves, but one by one, Jesus revealed that the kingdom of God did not conform to any of their ideas.

As the Pharisees quickly found out, Jesus would not conform to their ritual practices. Contrary to the Saducees, Jesus would make no accommodation to Herod. Jesus habit of eating and drinking with sinners would not have pleased the Essenes. And Jesus practice of non-violence and teaching about peacemakers would not have set well with the Zealots.

Blessed are the peacemakers

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

Like all the beatitudes, and indeed Jesus whole teaching about the kingdom of God, this saying, “blessed are the peacemakers,” is deeply counterintuitive. Mostly likely directed at the Zealots, this teaching flew directly in the face of their most cherished idea – that the way to be a child of God, the way to secure your place in the kingdom of God as a loyal and faithful son – was the take up the sword and smite the pagan dogs who dare to set their kingdom above God’s.

Jesus instead says, those who are called “the children of God” are the peacemakers. Like so many of Jesus’ other teachings, this is 180 degrees opposite from conventional wisdom. How is anything going to get done in this world without a sword? Peacemaking is weak, powerless – or so it seems.

However, Jesus’ teaching is not novel. Jesus is simply picking up one of the most significant strands of Hebrew teaching and bringing it into the present with a new twist. Isaiah paints this divine vision perhaps more clearly that any other Old Testament writer.

Proclaiming Peace

Throughout Isaiah we see that God envisions peace, or shalom, not just for Israel, but also for his entire creation.

Isaiah begins with a vision of the nations coming to Zion, the mountain of the Lord, where the Lord will settle their disputes so that they can “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.

“Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (Isa 2:4).

Isaiah then pictures a day when God’s people, who have been walking in darkness, will see a great light. A child will be born who will be known, among many other titles, as the “Prince of Peace.” “Of the increase of his government and peace,” Isaiah prophecies, “there will be no end” (Isa 9:2-7).

In chapter 54, Isaiah describes the “covenant of peace” which will never be removed, and in one of the most beautiful passages in all of Isaiah, God’s people are described as messengers of this covenant of peace.

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)

It is this remarkable and compelling vision of the peaceful reign of God over all the nations that Isaiah holds up as the purpose for which Israel exists.

He Is Our Peace

When the “Prince of Peace” is born in Bethlehem of Judea, in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah, Israel has languished for centuries waiting for the fulfillment of the prophecy. Many have lost hope. Others, as we have seen above, have developed strategies to bring in God’s kingdom by force or cunning.

In the story of Jesus’ birth, Luke has the angels singing, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14, TNIV), reminding us of the messengers (the Greek word for angel is literally, messenger) of Isaiah 52, who bring good news, proclaim peace and announce God’s reign. The gospel writers want us to know that we are witnessing the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Later New Testament writers highlight these connections. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes, “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14).

Jesus, himself, is the peace of God, come to mediate between the nations and create a lasting peace, which will know no end.

When Jesus enters upon his public ministry by saying, “The kingdom of heaven has come near,” he creates quite a stir. His description of the kingdom is remarkably similar to that of Isaiah and the other prophets.

This is why Jesus is able to say that peacemakers – those carrying a message of good news, saying “Your God reigns!” – will be known as the children of God.

Practice of peacemaking today

As the church continually reevaluates and reconsiders its role in God’s plan, this Beatitude, or blessing, of Jesus must not be taken lightly. It would be incorrect to see peacemaking as a minor part God’s plan to restore creation. What I have tried to show in this very brief overview is that God’s shalom is perhaps the central theme of God’s creation restoring work; the central metaphor throughout scripture for the complete wholeness of creation, which God is restoring.

The messengers of God’s shalom – those described in Isaiah 52:7 – are God’s precious co-laborers. Look again at this prophetic text.

How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7)

What is the English word for “those who bring good news?” Evangelist. An evangelist is one who proclaims the evangel, or good news.

And what is the content of the good news that these evangelists are proclaiming? Peace. Shalom. Salvation from all her enemies. The reign of God!

So, peacemaking – announcing and enacting peace in our world – is evangelism. It is bearing the good news to a world awash in violence, war, poverty, disease and every other injustice. The good news of God’s kingdom envisioned by the prophets (Isaiah most notably), incarnate in the person of Jesus and taught by him in passages like the Beatitudes, is a good news of God’s shalom gaining the upper hand in the world.

But how does God’s peace gain the upper hand in the world? And what is the role of peacemaking in all this?

Jesus’ way of achieving this peace is not the world’s way. In Jesus day, the Pax Romana – Peace of Rome – was widely heralded as the salvation of mankind. The Roman Empire proclaimed peace for the entire world. But it was a peace that came at the end of a sword. It was peace achieved by violence. The Pax Romana turned out to be an illusion, because peace cannot ultimately be achieved through violence.

Jesus taught a different way. The peace of God’s reign would come on a cross – from the greatest display of self-giving love. On the cross Jesus put into practice the teaching of his Sermon: love your enemies, do good to those who spitefully use you and persecute you, turn the other cheek, etc.

Rome’s way was peace through violence, or peace through victory. Jesus way is peace through justice. The two are radically different. Rome’s way says that peace will finally come when all foes are vanquished and the way you accomplish this is through military might. Jesus eschewed this kind of violence and militarism. Jesus taught that peace would finally come when righteousness, or justice, was the order of the day.

******

What does all this means for the church today? When the church reads this beatitude today, what is it that we hear?

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

First, it means that the gospel is, fundamentally, a gospel of peace. The gospel is pacifist, by its very nature. The good news of God’s at-hand kingdom eschews all forms of violence to achieve its ends. This includes all forms of manipulation we might be tempted to use to achieve “gospel ends.” Taking our cues from Jesus example, we cannot proclaim peace, violently. We cannot ensnare people in freedom. We cannot deceive people into the truth. The methods we use must be congruent with our message.

Secondly, the message of peace that we proclaim is more than words. Peace is something we are called to enact, as well. This is why the language of “peacemaking” is more helpful than pacifism, which implies passivity. There is nothing passive about the peacemaking that Jesus calls us to in the gospel. This means that as the church is considering it’s role as witnesses to God’s kingdom, we must recognize that our role goes beyond talking about God and his plans for the world. We must act in harmony with God’s plans. We must do what we anticipate in God’s future. If we, along with Isaiah, picture a future where nations beat their swords into plowshares, then the church must put its conviction to work and start beating on swords now.

Thirdly, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom today means speaking and acting for justice for the poor, the outcast, and the war-torn. It means speaking out again an unjust war and actively working to bring that war to an end. It means speaking truth to power and holding power to account for the righteousness that God envisions. In short, being peacemakers in God’s kingdom means being radically committed to overcoming evil with good.

What has faith to do with politics?

I want to share two brief stories from our congregation’s ministry that illustrate the way we are coming to understand our role as peacemakers.

In March our church held a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq, in which we prayed, read scripture, sang, told stories and shared experience of working for peace in our world. We lamented the injustice of the current Iraq War. Then, we took candles and went out on the street, and we marched with our candles, prayed and sang some more, as a public witness for peace. It was a very small thing, but it was putting our faith into action. Did it change the world? No. Did anyone notice? Very few. But in God’s kingdom – God’s economy, all these actions matter. Remember the mustard seed?

In June our church participated in several events that culminated in a Town Hall meeting with our elected city officials in which we insisted that they pay attention to the housing crisis in Los Angeles that is squeezing the lower and middle income families. We stood with over 1,000 residents of our town and spoke our truth to power. They listened and made commitments. We did that for the thousands and thousands of families who are being mistreated by their landlords and unjustly evicted from their apartments. We did that for those who cannot afford to live in the community where they have grown up all their lives.

Many have asked why we do these things – why our ministry is like this. We do these and many other things in our church and our community because we believe we are called to be those messengers with beautiful feet, who proclaim peace – God’s peace – to our world. It is our evangelism – our witness – to the world that God way is a better way and God wants people to experience life and freedom now, as well as some day in the future, in the world made new.

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.

_____________________

Ryan Bell is the Senior Pastor of the Hollywood Seventh-day Adventist Church in Hollywood, California. He and his wife and two daughters live two miles from the church are learning to be peacemakers in their local context.  He maintains an active blog at http://www.ryanjbell.net

Good morning! I appreciate the kind invitation of Raul Scialabba to participate in this Congress on religious liberty. I am truly honored and delighted to be here in Buenos Aires. I bring greetings from the U. S. and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. The BJC is a seventy year old group supported by fifteen different Baptist bodies and working on matters concerning religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Established to provide a united witness for Baptists in Washington D.C., the BJC works to defend and extend the religious liberty of all. History has taught us that if anyone’s religious liberty is denied, everyone’s religious liberty is endangered.

I. Introduction

Informing our understanding of the proper relationship between the church and the state is a conviction that religious liberty is a gift from God, not the result of any “toleration” on the part of government. It has to do with our being created in the image of God, and the ability that God gives us to respond as free and competent moral agents. This is why we Baptists treasure voluntary religion and “soul freedom” — a God-infused liberty of conscience — that Roger Williams, a 17th Century Baptist champion of freedom, and many other Baptists since then have fought for and sometimes died for.

Even though our religious liberty is a gift from God—not the result of an act of grudging concession by the state—in the U.S. we have chosen to tailor our political institutions to protect that God-given religious liberty. We do this mainly through the first two provisions of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The first sixteen words of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” These two clauses require government to be neutral towards religion—neither helping nor hurting religion, but turning it loose to allow people of faith to practice their religion—or not– as they see fit, not as government wants them to.

Both of these provisions ensure religious liberty; both require an institutional and functional separation of church and state. Full religious liberty is a goal; church-state separation is the political means of accomplishing that goal. Simply stated, separation of church and state is good for both.

The wise architects of the U.S. Constitution had learned the lessons of history. They knew from experience that, as soon as government meddles in religion – for or against— or takes sides in religion – favoring one over another – someone’s religious liberty is at least threatened and persecution sometimes ensues. If nothing else, government control of religion – even in the hands of a benevolent government – often winds up watering religion down.

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It never mentions Christianity and religion is mentioned only once in Article VI and then to ban religious tests for public office. And, with the adoption of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, our founders made it clear that one’s status in the civil community would not depend on a willingness to embrace any religious confession.

II. Establishment Clause

There are two basic views about the meaning and interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The first is a broad view, or “no-aid view.” It understands the language “no establishment” to prevent governmental endorsement of and aid to religion in general, not just a ban on denominational discrimination or outright coercion. Proponents of this view point out that the nation’s founders considered and rejected three proposed amendments that would have expressly allowed the government to prefer or advance religion generally, as long as it did not favor one religion over another. For example, the Senate in 1789 rejected a proposal that provided, “Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to another.” Instead, the founders settled upon much broader language that banned laws even “respecting an establishment of religion.”

Others take a narrow view of the Establishment Clause, sometimes called “non-preferentialism.” They understand the intent of the framers and the language of the First Amendment only to prevent government from preferring one religion over another, establishing a single national church or coercing religious choices. They would allow government to aid religion generally if done evenhandedly. Proponents of this view often point to the actions of the nation’s founders that showed little interest in keeping government from promoting religion, at least a generic Protestantism.

Generally speaking, the broad view of the Establishment Clause has been majority view for most of the past sixty years. Justice Hugo Black, writing in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), articulated its parameters when he said:

The ‘establishment of religion clause’ of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither the state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws…which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. In the words of Jefferson the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between church and state.” (Everson v. Board, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16, 1947)

Over the ensuing decades, culminating in a Supreme Court decision called Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court fashioned a three-part test for deciding the constitutionality of government action challenged under the Establishment Clause. In order to be upheld, the law or governmental action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religions, and (3) not foster excessive entanglement between church and state. Over the past several years the test has been criticized as encouraging hostility to religion and has been modified by the Court at least in the area of challenges to governmental funding of religion.

Those who have a narrow, non-preferential understanding of the Establishment Clause usually favor what is called a “coercion test.” This test posits that,

government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in any religion or its exercise; and it may not…give direct benefits to religion in such a degree that it in fact establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so. (County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 659 (1989) Kennedy, J., concurring in part.)

Otherwise government is free to aid religion.

Establishment Clause cases tend to fall into one of two general areas. First, concerns are raised when government expresses an opinion on or takes sides in matters of religion. It has to do with attempts by government to promote or endorse religion in words or symbols. These cases involve, for example, government displays of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols and state-sponsored religious exercises in the public schools.

The second general category of Establishment Clause cases has to do with what government does with public funds. These cases involve claims that government establishes religion by subsidizing pervasively religious organizations or religious activities. Examples include attempts to fund parochial schools and churches’ social service ministries.

III. Free Exercise Clause

The second religion clause – the Free Exercise Clause – is intended to prevent government from burdening or inhibiting the exercise of religion.

People disagree on how this clause should be interpreted and applied as well. Those who have a broad understanding contend that governmental exemptions based on religion are often permitted and sometimes required to remove burdens from the exercise of religion. This view says that robust religious liberty involves not just the right not to be discriminated against, but sometimes requires an exemption from facially neutral, general applicable laws.

So, for example, a Seventh Day Adventist could not be required to work on her Sabbath or risk losing unemployment compensation. Likewise, members of the Amish community would be entitled to an exemption from the compulsory education law that requires school attendance through age 16 when the Amish, for religious reasons, object to formal education through that age. This view of the Free Exercise Clause says that government may not impose a substantial burden on the exercise of religion without showing a compelling state interest – an interest of the highest order – and then it must do so in the least restrictive way. This broad view of the Free Exercise Clause was the majority view of the Supreme Court from the 1940’s through 1990.

Others take a narrow view of the Free Exercise Clause. They say that religiously-based exemptions from laws of general application, while in some cases permitted, are never constitutionally required. This view declares that the government need not demonstrate a compelling interest in order to justify burdening religious exercise; it simply must treat religion as it treats secular counterparts and not discriminate against religion. Of course, this view offers scant protection for the exercise of religion as a matter of right. But this narrow understanding of free exercise has become the majority view of the United States Supreme Court.

In Employment Division vs. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), the Court ruled that members of a Native American Church were not entitled to an exemption from the anti-drug laws to allow them to ingest peyote – a banned substance – as a sacrament in worship. As long as anti-drug laws are even-handedly enforced, government would not have to demonstrate a compelling interest to justify a denial of a religiously-based accommodation.

IV. Challenges

Having given this general overview of the interpretation of the First Amendment’s religion clauses, I now want to talk about two challenges to religious liberty in the U.S.

As I have said, both of these clauses in the First Amendment ensure religious liberty, but in different ways. The Establishment Clause keeps government from indirectly hurting your religion by helping somebody else’s religion and Free Exercise keeps government from harming your religion directly. Even though these provisions are complementary, sometimes—when taken to their logical conclusion—they rub up against the other clause.

This tension between the two clauses is good. If one assiduously enforces the Establishment Clause and forgets about free exercise, an environment of hostility to religion can result. However, if one concentrates only on the Free Exercise Clause and forgets about no establishment, the logical outcome can be a theocracy or something close to it. In either case, religious liberty would be diminished.

In short, it is important that we understand that government should accommodate religion, without advancing it; protect religion, without privileging it; sometimes lift burdens on the exercise of religion without extending religion an impermissible benefit.

Although U.S. constitutional law has come up with elaborate typologies to help us sort through this dilemma (mandatory, permissible and impermissible exemptions), I like to employ a common sense exercise. Every time we say “no” to government activity to uphold the Establishment Clause, we should find a way to say “yes” to its Free Exercise counterpart. This allows us always to try to find a “win-win” solution.

For example, if we disallow teacher-led prayer in the public schools or devotional Bible reading in the classroom, we should also permit voluntary student prayer, student-initiated Bible clubs, and teaching about religion at appropriate places in the curriculum. If we ban government subsidies for religion and religious institutions, we should favor tax exemption and permit government to fund separate religiously affiliated social service agencies that minister without religious discrimination. If we forbid government-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments, we should permit private citizens to do so even in public places. Again, every Establishment Clause “no” should be teamed up with a Free Exercise “yes”.

The second challenge that confronts us in the U.S. has to do with how we uphold our commitment to the separation of church and state without diminishing the relevance of religion to public life. This is a particularly apt topic this year because of our quadrennial presidential elections.

The separation of church and state does not require segregation of religion from politics or strip the public square of religious discourse. Religious people have an equal right to vend their views in the marketplace of ideas and (with some limits) to convert their religious ethics into public policy by organizing, speaking out, voting, and running for and serving in office.

People of faith need not limit their piety to the church house or to acts of private devotion, nor do they have to concede the public square to others. They should be involved, and seek to transform culture in part through the political process.

Religion can be a positive force in politics—both running for office and in governing – in at least two ways.

First, when candidates and government officials talk about their faith it helps us know who they are and examine what their moral core is like. We should have a free and fluid discussion, as I think we have had over the past 30 years since Jimmy Carter in a sense broke the silence on talking about faith in a campaign. But we must always keep in mind that Article VI of the Constitution bans religious tests for office. True, that provision addresses only legal disabilities based on religion and citizens can take religion into account when voting. But we should make every effort to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of Article VI. And, we must be tolerant of some candidates who, although they might have deep religious convictions, are not comfortable discussing them publicly. We should respect their right to keep their deepest religious convictions private and not quickly conclude they are irreligious just because they are not used to bearing their souls in public.

Second, it is important to inquire about how a candidate’s religious views will impact public policy and how one’s leadership style will be affected. There must always be this linkage. It is not at all helpful to have a theological discussion isolated from impact on policy and governance. For example, will religion merely motivate or entirely dominate a potential office holder’s decision-making? Does a candidate’s religious convictions ordain a particular policy position? What about choice of language? Will it involve narrow and sectarian or broader and more inclusive language? What about a conscious effort not to let one’s religious beliefs dictate policy? Will a candidate promise, for example, to bracket his or her convictions? We tend to see this a lot in connection with the abortion issue (John Kerry, Mario Cuomo), capital punishment (Virginia Governor Tim Kaine) and religion generally (President Kennedy, Governor Romney).

All of this said, I want to offer three words of caution to the notion that religion can be helpful. The first is theological. Any foray into politics with focused religious motivation should be tempered with a dose of humility. For good reason. Was it Blaisé Pascal who said that “men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction?” We need to understand that, however sure we think we are of our position, the other person at least has something to say and maybe in the final analysis is right. As James Dunn has said of the bombastic broadsides that we hear mainly from the religious right in recent years, “What they say is not totally false; it is falsely total.” It often lacks a note of self-evaluation, of tentativeness, of humility that one needs to bring to bear on a public policy message based squarely on one’s religious conviction. This goes for extremism on the religious left as well.

The second caveat is ethical in nature. It has to do with the use or abuse of “civil religion”—a blending of a generic Judeo-Christian piety with U. S. patriotism to the point that one can’t tell them apart. It should not surprise us that, in a country as religious as the U.S., references to God find their way into our civil ceremonies, mottos, slogans and public rituals. These include, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, “In God we Trust” on coins and the ubiquitous “God Bless America” at the end of almost every speech of public officials. These acknowledgements of religious heritage generally have been tolerated by our courts. But, I bristle when it appears civil religion is being used to advance a political agenda. We must apply some ethical breaks here on the general idea that including religion in a campaign and in governance is (or can be) a plus. It’s dicey and dangerous to judge a politician’s sincerity and good faith. But we do it the same way we make other judgments about such matters: observing the demeanor of the speaker and seeking to determine if they walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

The third cautionary note is a constitutional one. The ultimate outcome of religiously motivated policy initiatives should always have a secular purpose and have the primary effect that does not advance religion. That is what U.S. Representative David Price means when he talks about “a coincidence of the religious precept with broader public values.” For example, former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court Roy Moore clearly crossed the line when he installed outside his court a two ton monolith bearing the Ten Commandments, as every court that looked at the case concluded. But at the same time Alabama Governor Bob Riley was seeking tax reform, explicitly citing his Christian beliefs and Jesus’ teachings about the poor for justification. Riley’s religious motivation, however, was proper because there were a number of non-religious arguments and secular justifications to support tax reform.

While it is permissible for religion to motivate a policy, it should not dominate it. Stated differently, Jon Meacham the editor of “Newsweek” has said religion is a thread in the tapestry of American life, not the tapestry itself. Religion should shape policy, but not strangle it. Moreover, if the only rationale for a policy position is an a priori religious assertion, it is hard for it to be debated and tested in the marketplace of ideas and on the political scene. There must be some secular rationale for public policy that is based on religious conviction. Otherwise, it runs risk of violating the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment of religion.

I do not shy away from talking about separation of church and state as some are wont to do these days. Properly understood, it does not ban, but actually makes possible, the full inclusion of religion in the public square. And with these three caveats, that is good for religion and good for politics.

V. Conclusion

Along with theological precepts and constitutional principles, good citizenship and common sense compel the same results. Another way to look at this is to think of the “golden rule.” Everyone appreciates the sheer reasonableness of the golden rule, people of faith and no faith alike. I would like to propose a golden rule of church-state relations: I must not ask government to promote my religion if I do not want government to promote someone else’s religion; I must not permit government to harm someone else’s religion if I do not want the government to harm my religion. Enlightened self-interest, common courtesy and fundamental fairness require no less. What could be more Christian than that?

The full article is online at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp

Last week’s clash between Dr. James Dobson and Barack Obama is but the latest skirmish in a war that dates back to the time of Christ. At issue: What is Christian truth? Does the true Christian put social peace ahead of his duty to make God’s Law man’s law?

In a speech in June 2006, Obama, citing the Book of Leviticus, which declares homosexuality an abomination, noted that Leviticus also says the eating of shellfish is an abomination and condones slavery.

Moreover, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is “a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.”

Read the rest at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27282&s=rcmp

From http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/ 

October 18, 2006 – Boston College – Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life

Every day millions of schoolchildren pledge allegiance to the American flag and “the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Michael Newdow is a lawyer, physician, and First Amendment activist whose legal challenge to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge reached the Supreme Court in 2004, where Newdow personally argued his appeal to the justices (it was later dismissed on a technicality).

In this panel discussion, Newdow presents his case against “under God.” Joining him in discussion are Wendy Kaminer, a lawyer and social critic whose most recent book is Free for All: Defending Liberty in America Today (Beacon, 2002); and Phillip Munoz, an assistant professor of political philosophy and American Constitutional law at Tufts University, who is currently completing a book on religious freedom and the American founders.

The discussion is moderated by Alan Wolfe, professor of political science and director of Boston College’s Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life.

Panel Discussion – 55 minutes

Broadband 

Audio only 
 

Watch at http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/newdow/

1. JOHN WYCLIFFE – (~1320 – December 1384)

One of my favorite reformers has to be John Wycliffe, who translated the language of the Latin Vulgate into language that everybody could understand.  This weekend, as part of our weekend inspirational series, we are pleased to present this excerpt from the classic, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, not because of any connection with a particular faith, but rather because Wycliffe aspired to take important text and present it to the common people, and thus to give them a voice.  Wycliffe is a hero of religious liberty and had such an impact on the world that 41 years after his death, his political detractors dug up his body, burned it, and threw his ashes into the River Swift, where they spread into larger tributaries, into the ocean, and throughout the world, symbolizing the spread of liberty that would eventually reshape Europe and ultimately build a foundation for our freedoms today. – Editor

JOHN WYCLIFFE – (~1320 – December 1384)

It will not be inappropriate to devote a few pages of this work to a brief detail of the lives of some of those men who first stepped forward, regardless of the bigoted power which opposed all reformation, to stem the time of papal corruption, and to seal the pure doctrines of the Gospel with their blood. 

Among these, Great Britain has the honor of taking the lead, and first maintaining that freedom in religious controversy which astonished Europe, and demonstrated that political and religious liberty are equally the growth of that favored island. Among the earliest of these eminent persons was John Wycliffe.

This celebrated reformer, denominated the “Morning Star of the Reformation,” was born about the year 1324, in the reign of Edward II. Of his extraction we have no certain account. His parents designing him for the Church, sent him to Queen’s College, Oxford, about that period founded by Robert Eaglesfield, confessor to Queen Philippi. But not meeting with the advantages for study in that newly established house which he expected, he removed to Merton College, which was then esteemed one of the most learned societies in Europe. 

The first thing which drew him into public notice, was his defence of the university against the begging friars, who about this time, from their settlement in Oxford in 1230, had been troublesome neighbors to the university. Feuds were continually fomented; the friars appealing to the pope, the scholars to the civil power; and sometimes one party, and sometimes, the other, prevailed. The friars became very fond of a notion that Christ was a common beggar; that his disciples were beggars also; and that begging was of Gospel institution. This doctrine they urged from the pulpit and wherever they had access. 

Wycliffe had long held these religious friars in contempt for the laziness of their lives, and had now a fair opportunity of exposing them. He published a treatise against able beggary, in which he lashed the friars, and proved that they were not only a reproach to religion, but also to human society. The university began to consider him one of their first champions, and he was soon promoted to the mastership of Baliol College. 

About this time, Archbishop Islip founded Canterbury Hall, in Oxford, where he established a warden and eleven scholars. To this wardenship Wycliffe was elected by the archbishop, but upon his demise, he was displaced by his successor, Stephen Langham, bishop of Ely. As there was a degree of flagrant injustice in the affair, Wycliffe appealed to the pope, who subsequently gave it against him from the following cause: Edward III, then king of England, had withdrawn the tribune, which from the time of King John had been paid to the pope. The pope menaced; Edward called a parliament. The parliament resolved that King John had done an illegal thing, and given up the rights of the nation, and advised the king not to submit, whatever consequences might follow. 

The clergy now began to write in favor of the pope, and a learned monk published a spirited and plausible treatise, which had many advocates. Wycliffe, irritated at seeing so bad a cause so well defended, opposed the monk, and did it in so masterly a way that he was considered no longer as unanswerable. His suit at Rome was immediately determined against him; and nobody doubted but his opposition to the pope, at so critical a period, was the true cause of his being non-suited at Rome. 

Wycliffe was afterward elected to the chair of the divinity professor:  and now fully convinced of the errors of the Romish Church, and the vileness of its monastic agents, he determined to expose them. In public lectures he lashed their vices and opposed their follies. He unfolded a variety of abuses covered by the darkness of superstition. At first he began to loosen the prejudices of the vulgar, and proceeded by slow advances; with the metaphysical disquisitions of the age, he mingled opinions in divinity apparently novel. The usurpations of the court of Rome was a favorite topic. On these he expatiated with all the keenness of argument, joined to logical reasoning. This soon procured him the clamor of the clergy, who, with the archbishop of Canterbury, deprived him of his office. 

At this time the administration of affairs was in the hands of the duke of Lancaster, well known by the name of John of Gaunt. This prince had very free notions of religion, and was at enmity with the clergy. The exactions of the court of Rome having become very burdensome, he determined to send the bishop of Bangor and Wycliffe to remonstrate against these abuses, and it was agreed that the pope should no longer dispose of any benefices belonging to the Church of England. In this embassy, Wycliffe’s observant mind penetrated into the constitution and policy of Rome, and he returned more strongly than ever determined to expose its avarice and ambition. 

Having recovered his former situation, he inveighed, in his lectures, against the pope-his usurpation-his infallibility-his pride-his avarice- and his tyranny. He was the first who termed the pope Antichrist. From the pope, he would turn to the pomp, the luxury, and trappings of the bishops, and compared them with the simplicity of primitive bishops. Their superstitions and deceptions were topics that he urged with energy of mind and logical precision. 

From the patronage of the duke of Lancaster, Wycliffe received a good benefice; but he was no sooner settled in his parish, than his enemies and the bishops began to persecute him with renewed vigor. The duke of Lancaster was his friend in this persecution, and by his presence and that of Lord Percy, earl marshal of England, he so overawed the trial, that the whole ended in disorder. 

After the death of Edward III his grandson Richard II succeeded, in the eleventh year of his age. The duke of Lancaster not obtaining to be the sole regent, as he expected, his power began to decline, and the enemies of Wycliffe, taking advantage of the circumstance, renewed their articles of accusation against him. Five bulls were despatched in consequence by the pope to the king and certain bishops, but the regency and the people manifested a spirit of contempt at the haughty proceedings of the pontiff, and the former at that time wanting money to oppose an expected invasion of the French, proposed to apply a large sum, collected for the use of the pope, to that purpose. The question was submitted to the decision of Wycliffe. The bishops, however, supported by the papal authority, insisted upon bringing Wycliffe to trial, and he was actually undergoing examination at Lambeth, when, from the riotous behavior of the populace without, and awed by the command of Sir Lewis Clifford, a gentleman of the court, that they should not proceed to any definitive sentence, they terminated the whole affair in a prohibition to Wycliffe, not to preach those doctrines which were obnoxious to the pope; but this was laughed at by our reformer, who, going about barefoot, and in a long frieze gown, preached more vehemently than before. 

In the year 1378, a contest arose between two popes, Urban VI and Clement VII which was the lawful pope, and true vicegerent of God. This was a favorable period for the exertion of Wicliffe’s talents: he soon produced a tract against popery, which was eagerly read by all sorts of people. 

About the end of the year, Wycliffe was seized with a violent disorder, which it was feared might prove fatal. The begging friars, accompanied by four of the most eminent citizens of Oxford, gained admittance to his bed chamber, and begged of him to retract, for his soul’s sake, the unjust things he had asserted of their order. Wycliffe, surprised at the solemn message, raised himself in his bed, and with a stern countenance replied, “I shall not die, but live to declare the evil deeds of the friars.” 

When Wycliffe recovered, he set about a most important work, the translation of the Bible into English. Before this work appeared, he published a tract, wherein he showed the necessity of it. The zeal of the bishops to suppress the Scriptures greatly promoted its sale, and they who were not able to purchase copies, procured transcripts of particular Gospels or Epistles. Afterward, when Lollardy increased, and the flames kindled, it was a common practice to fasten about the neck of the condemned heretic such of these scraps of Scripture as were found in his possession, which generally shared his fate. 

Immediately after this transaction, Wycliffe ventured a step further, and affected the doctrine of transubstantiation. This strange opinion was invented by Paschade Radbert, and asserted with amazing boldness. Wycliffe, in his lecture before the University of Oxford, 1381, attacked this doctrine, and published a treatise on the subject. Dr. Barton, at this time vice-chancellor of Oxford, calling together the heads of the university, condemned Wycliffe’s doctrines as heretical, and threatened their author with excommunication. Wycliffe could now derive no support from the duke of Lancaster, and being cited to appear before his former adversary, William Courteney, now made archbishop of Canterbury, he sheltered himself under the plea, that, as a member of the university, he was exempt from episcopal jurisdiction. This plea was admitted, as the university were determined to support their member. 

The court met at the appointed time, determined, at least to sit in judgment upon his opinions, and some they condemned as erroneous, others as heretical. The publication on this subject was immediately answered by Wycliffe, who had become a subject of the archbishop’s determined malice. The king, solicited by the archbishop, granted a license to imprison the teacher of heresy, but the commons made the king revoke this act as illegal. The primate, however, obtained letters from the king, directing the head of the University of Oxford to search for all heresies and books published by Wycliffe; in consequence of which order, the university became a scene of tumult. Wycliffe is supposed to have retired from the storm, into an obscure part of the kingdom. The seeds, however, were scattered, and Wycliffe’s opinions were so prevalent that it was said if you met two persons upon the road, you might be sure that one was a Lollard. At this period, the disputes between the two popes continued. Urban published a bull, in which he earnestly called upon all who had any regard for religion, to exert themselves in its cause; and to take up arms against Clement and his adherents in defence of the holy see. 

A war, in which the name of religion was so vilely prostituted, roused Wycliffe’s inclination, even in his declining years. He took up his pen once more, and wrote against it with the greatest acrimony. He expostulated with the pope in a very free manner, and asks him boldly: ‘How he durst make the token of Christ on the cross (which is the token of peace, mercy and charity) a banner to lead us to slay Christian men, for the love of two false priests, and to oppress Christiandom worse than Christ and his apostles were oppressed by the Jews? ‘When,’ said he, ‘will the proud priest of Rome grant indulgences to mankind to live in peace and charity, as he now does to fight and slay one another?’

This severe piece drew upon him the resentment of Urban, and was likely to have involved him in greater troubles than he had before experienced, but providentially he was delivered out of their hands. He was struck with the palsy, and though he lived some time, yet it was in such a way that his enemies considered him as a person below their resentment. 

Wycliffe returning within short space, either from his banishment, or from some other place where he was secretly kept, repaired to his parish of Lutterworth, where he was parson; and there, quietly departing this mortal life, slept in peace in the Lord, in the end of the year 1384, upon Silvester’s day. It appeared that he was well aged before he departed, “and that the same thing pleased him in his old age, which did please him being young.” 

Wycliffe had some cause to give them thanks, that they would at least spare him until he was dead, and also give him so long respite after his death, forty-one years to rest in his sepulchre before they ungraved him, and turned him from earth to ashes; which ashes they also took and threw into the river. And so was he resolved into three elements, earth, fire, and water, thinking thereby utterly to extinguish and abolish both the name and doctrine of Wycliffe forever. Not much unlike the example of the old Pharisees and sepulchre knights, who, when they had brought the Lord unto the grave, thought to make him sure never to rise again. But these and all others must know that, as there is no counsel against the Lord, so there is no keeping down of verity, but it will spring up and come out of dust and ashes, as appeared right well in this man; for though they dug up his body, burned his bones, and drowned his ashes, yet the Word of God and the truth of his doctrine, with the fruit and success thereof, they could not burn.