Karel Nowak: A Legacy of Religious Liberty (Spectrum Magazine)

Barry Bussey writes a moving tribute to Karel Nowak, Public Affairs and Religious Liberty director for the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s Euro-Africa Division who fell victim to a tragedy on August 19.  Bussey discusses Nowak’s view of religious liberty ministry.

EXCERPT:

Shortly before I left the work at the GC office I had an opportunity to sit down with Karel and ask him what he would say to the person who would replace him. What words of wisdom would he give. He had shared with me that he planned to retire when his current term of office had come to an end. I had no idea that this question would prove to be such an important question. Karel told me, “my understanding of the service I am trying to provide to the church is similar to the service provided by ADRA in a humanitarian area. I think that the global church needs three type of services provided by the PARL department:”

1. the church needs to be constantly reminded of the principles and importance of religious freedom;
2. the church needs to be known in the society as a community that promotes and protects religious freedom;
3. the church needs to get reliable, correct information about the legal and social situation in every country.

The PARL department has two primary functions, according to Karel, first it is to provide information about the legal and social issues of religious freedom in the given country; and second, it is to be involved in creating a positive image of the Adventist church to the community.

Read the full article here.

Adventist Church Selects New UN Liaison

From Adventist News Network - The Seventh-day Adventist Church has selected Ganoune Diop, a theologian and multi-linguist, as its new voice at the United Nations.

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

By Martin Surridge – My personal experience with terrorism is not extensive but is actual nevertheless, and extends through several phases of my life. As a child I lived in East England, and North London and I remember the daily news updates of the troubles in Northern Ireland that would frequently extend into England. When I was ten years old, an IRA terrorist killed himself and injured eight others when his bomb detonated in a bus traveling in Aldwych, London.  This vehicle was decimated only twenty miles from our house in Watford and it was part of a public bus system our family used several times a year. It understandably left the residents of North London shaken, including my mother who was concerned for our safety as children when we traveled in the area. Other IRA attacks included a bombing less than an hour away from our town that killed two that same year and mortar attacks 30 mins away just three years earlier.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discernibly Proactive: History of Adventist Involvement in Public Policy

Discernibly Proactive
Balancing National Temperance Reform with
Opposition to Sunday Law Legislation

By Kevin R. James & Gregory W. Hamilton
Published in the June 2004 edition of Liberty Express Journal

VIDEO: President Obama on Church and State

Obama on Church and State

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.

High School Sophomores Answer Question “How Would You Feel If Your Religious Freedom Was Taken Away?”

Since March, I have been working with a group of high school sophomores in a Shakespeare class, as part of my student teaching experience at a Christian school in Washington State. In addition to studying Shakespeare’s life and the many sonnets he wrote, we have of course been reading several of his plays, including The Merchant of Venice. One of the more fascinating parts of this particular play is in one of the final scenes, where Shylock, the Jewish money-lender and villain of the play, is forced to convert to Christianity after his murderous intentions are foiled in a Venetian court of law. Shylock must also surrender the majority of his estate, forfeit his claim to the debt he is owed, and watch his daughter leave the Jewish faith and marry a Christian man whom he despises. Considering that The Merchant of Venice is usually categorized as a comedy, it is one of the most tragic ends for a character in any of Shakespeare’s plays, and the treatment of Shylock in the play has led to a great literary debate over the years regarding anti-Semitism in Shakespearean literature.

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

###

Michigan Church Has the Right to Help Poor People, ACLU Tells Court (ACLU Release)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

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.

First religious liberty festival in Jerusalem draws hundreds (ANN)

Source: Adventist News Network

Hundreds of religious liberty proponents from Israel and the Palestinian Territories gathered in Jerusalem Sunday for the symbolic city’s first festival of religious freedom.

The event generated a “climate of good understanding” among attendees that organizers hope will spur increased tolerance in the region, said John Graz, secretary-general for the International Religious Liberty Association (IRLA), which sponsors festivals worldwide to encourage freedoms of religion.

Hosting the event in a city holy to three major world faiths — Judaism, Islam and Christianity — was particularly significant, said Graz, who also directs the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s department of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL).

While Christians enjoy broad freedoms and are allowed to conduct outreach on a limited basis in largely Orthodox Jewish Israel, treatment of Muslims is a subject of international controversy, according to the Religious Freedom World Report, a PARL publication.

Conservative Jews, who embrace a non-fundamentalist interpretation of the Jewish faith, also face hurdles to religious freedom, said Rabbi Yaacov Lebeau, who spoke at the event. Because of the dominance of Orthodox Judaism, weddings and other ceremonies conducted in Conservative synagogues are not fully recognized, he said.

“It could be very easy to be influenced by extremist groups and fall into exclusivism,” regional Adventist President Richard Elofer said. Given the “multi-cultural and multi-region” makeup of Israel, defending inclusive freedoms is a priority to ensure that doesn’t happen, he added.

Some 300 religious liberty advocates from Jewish and Christian communities attended the event.

AUDIO: Karen Scott – “Rethinking the Premise of Religious Liberty”

Each year, the Walla Walla University Church in College Place, Washington celebrates religious liberty. On February 28, 2009, Karen Scott delivered an address entitled, “Rethinking the Premise of Religious Liberty.”  Scott, an attorney who is a member of both the Provincial Bar of British Columbia and the State Bar of California, is also a member of the ReligiousLiberty.TV Advisory Panel.  Scott successfully argued a religious liberty case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Court decided in her client’s favour, changing the law in Canada for accommodation in the workplace.

In this presentation, Scott examines the ties between religious liberty and the Gospel. Everyone has a conscience and God has given to each the inalienable right to choose for Him or against Him. And yet God offers salvation to everyone, even His enemies (Romans 5:10). We are called to be perfect, even as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). In other words, those who profess to follow Jesus, ought to love just as He did, which means that we too will grant others the right to choose for or against God and we too will love them as He does.

http://www.religiousliberty.tv/audio/022809karenscott.mp3

Join our Facebook Group!

ReligiousLiberty.TV is now on Facebook, the social networking site with nearly 60 million members, and we’ve formed an RLTV group where you can share ideas, discuss the issues, post your own photos and videos and become involved.  Includes exclusive mailings opportunities to get to know others who are interested in the issues we discuss on RLTV.

It is free and anybody can join!

Click here to join ReligiousLiberty.TV on Facebook

Next Page »