Obama explains the importance of church-state separation in a variety of ways. What it comes down to is; In a diverse democratic society, any proposed policy must justify itself via the benefits we ALL see, rather than via arguments that only hold true to people who have one certain religious worldview.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

ACLU – http://aclumich.org/issues/religious-liberty/2009-09/1395
September 24, 2009

DETROIT — In a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Ferndale, the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan has urged the Oakland County Circuit Court not to interfere with the church’s mission of serving the poor.  A group of Ferndale residents, citing a zoning ordinance, recently asked the court to deny the church the ability to use its own building to provide charitable social services to poor people.  The ACLU argued in its brief that denying the church permission to help poor people would violate the Religious Land Use Act of 2000.

“Congress enacted the Religious Land Use Act to protect the fundamental right of freedom of religion,” said Dan Korobkin, an ACLU of Michigan staff attorney who is representing the church.  “Churches and other religious institutions have the right to use their property to exercise their religious beliefs — which in this case entails providing charitable services to the poor and underprivileged.”

“We take seriously the biblical command that Christians feed the hungry and clothe the poor,” explained Rev. Catherine Feldpausch, pastor of First Baptist Church of Ferndale.  “Using our church to help underprivileged citizens is an essential part of our religious mission.”

Last year, the First Baptist Church made arrangements for a charity for homeless persons known as the South Oakland Shelter to occupy an empty wing of the church where it would provide daytime social services including job counseling and access to telephones, the Internet, and personal hygiene facilities.  A small group of Ferndale residents who lived near the church asked the City of Ferndale to block the move, and in March the ACLU wrote a letter to the Ferndale Board of Zoning Appeals urging the city not to interfere with the church’s religious exercise.  The zoning board agreed with the ACLU and approved the South Oakland Shelter plan, but the residents have appealed the Board’s decision to the Oakland County Circuit Court.  Judge Denise Langford Morris is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the appeal on October 21.

In its brief, the ACLU argues that the Ferndale zoning board was correct to side with the church because federal law prohibits land use regulations that substantially burden the ability of a religious institution to advance its religious mission.  Zoning boards may not make decisions that burden the free exercise of religion simply because neighbors object.

“After considering the neighbors’ objections and learning about the First Baptist Church’s religious mission, the City of Ferndale made the right call,” said Korobkin.  “We’re hopeful that the court, too, will recognize that religious freedom is paramount.”

Marshall J. Widick of the Detroit law firm Sachs Waldman authored the ACLU’s brief on behalf of the church.  In addition to Widick and Korobkin, the First Baptist Church of Ferndale is represented by ACLU of Michigan Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg.

To read the brief, click here.

To read the ACLU’s letter to the zoning board, click here.

Washington DC, Jan 21, 2009 / 03:19 am (CNA).- Former Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork has predicted that upcoming legal battles will have significant ramifications for religious freedom. He names as issues of major concern the continued freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and the likely “terrible conflict” resulting from the advancement of homosexual rights.

Speaking in an interview published Tuesday by Cybercast News Service, Judge Bork discussed the contentious nature of modern politics.

“Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t,” he said.

“You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions,” he claimed.

“We are going to see in the near future a terrible conflict between claimed rights of homosexuals and religious freedom… You are going to get Catholic or other groups’ relief services that are going to be required to allow adoption of a child by homosexual couples.  We are going to have a real conflict that goes right to the heart of the society.”

Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied:

“Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role.”

1. Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D. is Dean of the College of Humanities and Dean of the Graduate School as well as director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the University of Mary Hardin-Baker in Belton, Texas.

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

According to the Slavic Legal Center in Moscow, many of the organizations believe they are in full compliance with filing requirements and are surprised to be included in the list.  They are unsure if the posting is a scare tactic or if the Ministry of Justice indeed intends to pursue liquidations on a massive scale. Anatoly Pchelintsev, an attorney for the Slavic Center for Law and Justice, remarked that “such actions fly in the face of official Russian state policy on the freedom of worship and creed.” Pchelintsev believes the responsible officials are unaware of the complicated international ramifications of their actions and cites the possibility of “chaos and destabilization in church-state relations.”  He added that in the case of most of the affected organizations, the threatened punishment goes too far.  “In Russia there already are more than a dozen cases in which courts rendered decisions in favor of religious organizations since the punishment for their failure to submit information did not formally fit the crime committed.”  Moreover, he added, “liquidation for failure to submit information is equivalent to sentencing a jaywalker to the death penalty. After all, liquidation means that the organization’s life is put to an end.”  In addition, said Pchelintsev, “such actions are inconsistent with the policy of the Russian government, which guarantees freedom of conscience and religious confessions for each person. The widespread liquidation of religious associations for petty violations will lead to the crudest infringement of human rights in our country and to the self-isolation of the government.”

Pastor Vitaly Vlasenko, Director for External Church Relations of the Russian Union of Christians-Baptists, had a less dramatic reaction.  He warned against undue alarm, suggesting that the action by the Ministry of Justice is a mere “wake-up call.”  He reported that thousands of religious organizations were registered during the 1990s, and that because a number of them are now defunct, the Ministry is probably only attempting to clear out organizations that no longer function.  In some cases, he noted, registered and actual activities no longer match. For example, he said, in one instance, “a Baptist organization registered in Moscow is active only in Siberia.”

However, according to Joseph K. Grieboski, president of Washington DC’s Institute for Religion and Democracy, “the move to liquidate several organizations can be seen only as a move to limit and control their activity further.   Despite recent European Court of Human Rights cases against such activities and registration standards, the Russian Government continues its ongoing tightening of religious activity and continues to threaten free exercise of faith in Russia.”

It is too early to know precisely why the Ministry is threatening dissolution of so many religious groups.  Russians are accustomed to a degree of arbitrariness and intimidation as pertains to non-Orthodox religions, but are such threats really necessary?  Could not the organizations have been contacted separately and asked to supply needed information for compliance rather than discovering from outside sources that they suffer possible dissolution?    According to Pchelintsev, a majority of the organizations named in the list are seriously frightened, if not already in panic mode.

The Ministry of Justice’s action only bolsters the claim by many within Russia that the government is not serious about religious freedom but consistently works in tandem with the Russian Orthodox Church to pester, persecute and eliminate if possible other religions.  By most estimates, more than eighty percent of Russians today identify themselves as Orthodox. There is a saying in Russia: “To be Russian is to be Orthodox.”  Nevertheless, the restructuring of Russia that began in the late 1980’s was supposed to be about creating a democracy where freedom was ensured for all citizens, and all religions were to have equal standing before the law. 

But the Russian Orthodox Church was always a vocal critic of this new policy of religious freedom, and prevailed upon the Duma to pass a highly restrictive new law in 1997 that slowed Russia’s experiment with unlimited religious freedom.  This law, which comprehensively regulates church-state relations in Russia, specially acknowledges the unique contributions to Russia’s culture and statehood of several of the nation’s oldest religions––Russian Orthodoxy in particular–but it also discriminates against the Federation’s less traditional religions by requiring special registration procedures and by limiting the scope of the activities in which they can lawfully engage. 

Many religious organizations have already been liquidated under this law; frequently it has been used as a tool for officials throughout Russia to remove unwanted religious groups.  In the spirit of this sanctioned discrimination, it remains difficult for many religious organizations to buy or even rent property to be used for worship purposes, meet for worship services, conduct schools, disseminate religious literature, or proselytize.  “The Russian Orthodox Church is already halfway towards becoming a state church,” the business daily Kommersant wrote recently.  Another kind of disquiet was expressed by Anatoly Krasikov, an expert in socio-religious studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, who warned, “if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”  

 ”if Orthodoxy becomes a new ideology, we’ll be right back to a totalitarian state.”  

The Ministry of Justice’s action against 56 religious organizations might be a genuine but harmless attempt to bring the organizations into compliance with law.   But many inside Russia doubt whether there is not something more troublesome at play here.   It might well be Russia’s latest attempt to elevate Russian Orthodoxy to a position made prominent by reducing and eliminating the competition.  Russia must confront the task of how best to treat religion and religious institutions within an emerging democratic order.   Given Russia’s history, the Russian Orthodox Church might expect to have a dominant cultural role long into the future, but it is the Russian people, in democratic course, who must ultimately deny the church a preferred legal position. Their decision is key to the advance, or decline, of freedom in the new Russia.

Derek H. Davis, J.D., Ph.D. is Dean of the College of Humanities and Dean of the Graduate School as well as director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the University of Mary Hardin-Baker in Belton, Texas.

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

Photography by Ryan J. Bell.

“While China’s leadership has shown a willingness to abandon, gradually, its anti-religious bias, this freedom has its limits. The regime still tries to micromanage religion. Citizens who shun state-sanctioned religious institutions in favour of “underground” churches do so at great personal risk. How the government deals with God in China will reveal whether the country is finally ready for democracy. In this hour-long documentary, produced for Italy’s RomeReports News Agency, Chinese men and women speak candidly of their experiences as religious believers, and their assessment of what the future may hold for them. The film presents interviews with representatives of both official and underground religions, shows priests and seminarians practicing their faith in secret, and offers a rare glimpse into China’s Muslim community.”

1 of 6

2 of 6

3 of 6

4 of 6

5 of 6

6 of 6

Does this go too far, or is it just what religious employees need?  Is the proposed regulation too broad, or just right?  Should the regulation define what types of procedures should be included in religious objections, or should it be open-ended? Should it have been heard in Congress as a bill, or is the regulatory method of submitting it into law sufficient?

EXCERPT:

Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights
Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A01

EXCERPT:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.

But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women’s health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

Read the full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

U.S. President George Bush says he will continue to press for greater religious freedom in his meetings with world leaders – including those in China. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports Mr. Bush spoke at a ceremony marking the 10th anniversary of legislation designed to promote religious freedom around the world.

George W. Bush makes a statement in Rose Garden of White House, 14 Jul 2008

The president says in too many countries, too many people lack the right to worship as they please.

“Our thoughts turn especially to countries where religious freedom is of particular concern,” said President Bush. “Some of these nations have taken steps toward reform. Others have not.”

In remarks on the 10th anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act, the president made specific mention of Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, North Korea, Burma, Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. But his most detailed remarks concerned the treatment of those seeking religious freedom in China.

Mr. Bush spoke about his recent meeting in Washington with a Chinese human-rights lawyer named Li Baiguang who is a devout Protestant.

“For his work he has been repeatedly jailed and attacked,” he said. “A few months ago, he was scheduled to meet with members of Congress. State authorities blocked the meeting and detained Li on the outskirts of Beijing.”

President Bush said he has brought up the need for greater religious freedom in China in past meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao. He has indicated he plans to do so again when he travels to Beijing next month for the opening of the summer Olympic games.

“Wherever and whenever I meet leaders, I am going to constantly remind them they ought to welcome religion in their society, not fear it,” said Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush made his comments to a small audience made up largely of members of Congress who pushed the International Religious Freedom Act through the legislature in 1998.  Among other things, it set up a U.S. commission to monitor religious rights around the world, established the position of an ambassador for religious freedom, and authorized the use of sanctions against nations that deny their people the right to worship as they see fit.

http://voanews.com/english/2008-07-14-voa61.cfm

Used with permission pursuant to VOA Terms of Service.

“”It’s critical that other nations join with us in reaffirming this foundational human right and stand for the freedom of all people to choose their religious beliefs.”

Read the ANN article online at http://news.adventist.org/data/2008/1213387100/index.html.en

Religion continues to be a hot issue in the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  Thanks for this link goes to Greg Hamilton at the Northwest Religious Liberty Association.

Read more at http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080507/pl_afp/usvoterepublicanmccain&printer=1;_ylt=AhjJFbLNU1DYDT4tT6gbFpGtOrgF

by Carlos Hamann Wed May 7, 3:52 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain vowed in a speech on Wednesday to make freedom of religion a key foreign policy issue if he is elected to the White House in November.

“There is no right more fundamental to a free society than the free practice of religion,” he said at Oakland University in the state of Michigan.

“Behind walls of prisons and persecuted before our very eyes in places like China, Iran, Burma, Sudan, North Korea and Saudi Arabia are tens of thousands of people whose only crime is to worship God in their own way.”

He added: “Whether in bilateral negotiations, or in various multinational organizations to which America belongs, I will make respect for the basic principle of religious freedom a priority in international relations.”

According to McCain, no society “that denies religious freedom can ever rightly claim to be good in some other way. And no person can ever be true to any faith that believes in the dignity of all human life if they do not act out of concern for those whose dignity is assailed because of their faith.”