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

Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless the United States of America.”

The theme of the conference is ”Secularism and Religious Freedom-Conflict or Partnership?” which will differentiate between secularism in terms of separation of church and state under which faith can freely thrive  and hostile radical secularism which seeks to marginalize religion. Other topics up for discussion will include the impact of the recent government changes in Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

Since 2003, the United Nations has recognized the IRLA as a Category II Non-Governmental Organization and its thirteen regions cover the globe. Although this organization, comprised of a volunteer staff, was started by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it is non-sectarian and many other religious traditions who value liberty of conscience are involved in its operation.

In February 24, 1893, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists meeting in Battle Creek, Michigan adopted a Resolution and Remonstrance objecting to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that had essentially declared the United States a “Christian nation” when deciding that the World’s Fair should close on Sundays. The argument the Court made in supporting its decision, more than the issue of Sunday itself, was the subject of the objection.

The Supreme Court had stated that, “There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Com., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, ‘Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”— Supreme Court Decision, 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity Decision v United States.

In response, the Adventist Church objected to the assertion that the government could define religion, and stated that “religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the universal Judge.”

Describing the decision, the resolution drafted by A.T. Jones stated, “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and the noblest characteristic of the American Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and avoided the consequences by denying the principles.”

In arguments that are remarkably pertinent to the issues we face in 2012, the resolution states, “We, therefore, as Christians, as Protestants, as American citizens, and as men, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the natural rights of mankind, of the Constitution of the United States, of history of more than eighteen hundred years, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, solemnly publish and declare that we are and of right ought to be, free and independent of all connection, direction, dictation, interference, or control, of the government of the United States, in matters of religion or religious observances or religious institutions of any kind or degree; and that, as such, so far as earthly authority is concerned, we have full right to be religious or not religious, to worship or not to worship, to observe a day or not to observe it, according to the dictates of our own consciences and the convictions of our own minds.”

The full document as well as additional materials including the Supreme Court decision in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) is available at the Adventist Archives.

The IRLA has adopted the following set of principles:

• We believe that religious liberty is a God-given right.
• We believe that legislation and other governmental acts which unite church and state are contrary to the best interests of both institutions and are potentially prejudicial to human rights, and hold that it is best exercised where separation is maintained between church and state.
• We believe that government is divinely ordained to support and protect citizens in their employment of natural rights, and to rule in civil affairs; and that in so doing, government warrants respectful obedience and willing support.
• We believe in the natural and inalienable right of freedom of conscience – to have or not to have a religion; to adopt the religion or belief of one’s choice; to change religious belief according to conscience; to manifest one’s religion individually or in community with others, in worship, observance, practice, promulgation and teaching – subject only to respect for the equivalent rights of others.
• We believe that religious liberty includes also the freedom to establish and operate appropriate charitable or educational institutions, to solicit or receive voluntary financial contributions, to observe days of rest and celebrate holidays in accordance with the precepts of one’s religion, and to maintain communication with fellow believers at national and international levels.
• We believe that religious liberty and the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief are essential to promote understanding, peace and friendship among people.
• We believe that citizens should use lawful and honorable means to prevent the reduction of religious liberty, so that all may enjoy its inestimable blessing.
• We believe that the spirit of true religious liberty is epitomized in the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

Today, the International Religious Liberty Association continues forward with a global focus on freedom. While many religious organizations address religious freedom from the perspective of one nation or another, the IRLA recognizes that what one nation does may affect the liberty of people in other nations, and so efforts are designed to coordinate between people of faith in various countries.

Much of this international focus is probably due to the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Hospital operates, under a single umbrella, churches, hospitals, schools, and colleges and a variety of other institutions around the world. If freedom is curtailed in one place, the impact is acutely felt elsewhere.

News and video updates of the IRLA Conference are going to be made available at http://www.irla.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

It is free and anybody can join!

Click here to join ReligiousLiberty.TV on Facebook

Eric Holder

Today, former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton, Eric Holder accepted President-elect Barack Obama’s invitation to become the next Attorney General.

Holder, who is on the board of the American Constitution Society (ACS) has a fundamental understanding of the role of the law in society, and recognizes the concept that nobody is above or below the law.  

Earlier this year, he gave a lecture for the ACS convention regarding the importance of restoring the rule of law. He called upon the United States to reverse “the disastrous course” set by the current administration in the struggle against terrorism, arguing “the next president must move immediately to reclaim America’s standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

Click here to watch a video of his lecture.

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.

By Jonathan Gallagher, Ph.D.  

Visit http://www.jonathangallagher.com to read Dr. Gallagher’s other writings.

How religious beliefs are exploited for political and secular ends, and the consequences for religious liberty

When inter-religious violence erupted in Indonesia just a few years ago, the primary response was astonishment. Had not Christians and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists—in fact believers of just about every faith under the sun—lived together in relative tranquility, with mutual toleration marred only rarely by religious difference?

So where did the sudden animosity come from?

Tracing the waves of massacre and death back, it seems that the trouble began with a minor dispute between two villagers. It just so happened that one was Christian, the other Muslim. But that was not the cause of the disagreement. However, as the situation became inflamed, the opposing families began to exploit the religious difference, until the whole pot boiled over into violence against the other side, ultimately defined purely on the basis of religious persuasion.

The end result? Thousands dead, hundreds of thousands displaced, refugees in their own country. Holy wars, forced conversions, rape and mutilation—all apparently because of “inter-religious conflict.”

Yet this vivid example clearly reveals that the motive forces behind the violence are not primarily based on religious concepts, but on the use of religion to label and define the enemy.

The end of an authoritarian regime, competition for land and resources, employment issues, inter-tribal disputes, economic disparities—all these have a far more significant causes for the communal violence in Indonesia. Religion is just a convenient “identifier” that sanctions war and murder because of the perceived threat to one’s own community.

In the words of Maksum Maksum, chief editor of the Indonesian daily newspaper Jawa Post, “Different communities have difficulty in detaching themselves from religious matters. There can be jealousy and suspicion between religious groups, and a very complex societal problem can develop that is very difficult to resolve.”¹

Why does it happen? Why the inter-religious violence?  According to Aidir Amir Daud, vice-director of the Indonesian daily newspaper Fajar, “The Indonesian constitution guarantees religious freedom but this is not always applied in practice. Religion is the right of the individual, but other factors such as affluence can cause problems. The key is communication between religious leaders and a working together for socio-economic equality.”²

In other words, the root causes are economic, social and political. Religion is simply the tool that is used to gain control.

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

The extreme militant Taliban militia that controls most of Afghanistan also exemplifies the use of religious dictates as powerful, political tools. Claiming that their interpretation of the Islam mandated their actions, the Taliban have essentially barred women from participation in education and many aspects of society; have decreed death to anyone leaving the Islamic faith or encouraging another to do so; have banned access to the Internet; have destroyed the religious heritage of other faith (e.g. the Buddhist statues); and have required religious minorities to wear a distinguishing label, reminiscent of Hitler’s yellow star requirement for Jews.

Through the total integration of religion and politics in Afghanistan, there is no opportunity for political dissent, for that equates to religious apostasy. Religion is completely hijacked in the service of the state, an unquestionable tool of oppression and discrimination to which there can be no opposition.

So too in Sudan, which was named in the 2000 report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom as the world’s worst violator of religious liberty. The 2001 report indicates that the situation has not improved, but deteriorated:

“The situation in Sudan has grown worse in the year since the release of the Commission’s report. The government of Sudan continues to commit egregious human rights abuses – including widespread bombing of civilian and humanitarian targets, abduction and enslavement by government-sponsored militias, manipulation of humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war, and severe restrictions on religious freedom.”3

The Islamic government of the north is waging a genocidal war against the south, whose population is mainly Christian and animist. Through a policy of massacre and destruction of villages, the government uses “Islamicization” as a tool to forcibly convert and enslave those captured in the south. Girls are forced into slavery and worse, boys forced to join the army and sent to fight in the south.

The methodology is one designed to eradicate all opposition and to enforce conformity. The tool of choice is religion; religion exploited as a vicious mechanism of destruction and death for all who will not comply.

Many moderates protest that such use of religion is against the fundamental principles of the faith in question. It is undeniably true that all the major religions speak to greater or lesser degrees about tolerance and compassion. Yet when religion becomes aligned with the political extremists, such moderate views are lost in the rhetoric and violence. No one wants to be seen as being in opposition to what is deemed a matter of faith, of being opposed to those who have not only demanded what is Caesar’s, but what is God’s too.

India provides a troubling picture of religious trends. The development of “Hindu fundamentalism” correlates with the establishment of the BJP, the “Hindu nationalist” party that now forms the government of India. India has traditionally been a tolerant and pluralistic society as far as religion is concerned. It has welcomed religions from beyond its borders, and Hinduism itself has always promoted toleration and acceptance. That is not to say that there have been no conflicts in the past, but generally India has been free from major religious conflict.

Today that tolerant scenario is fading rapidly. The exclusivistic attitude of the “Hindu national” politicians has encouraged an atmosphere of suspicion and fear, with inter-religious conflict the obvious result. Instead of a being an inclusive expression of religion, Hinduism is now being marketed as the “national faith.” Calls are made from the government to resist the work of Christian missionaries.

Any attempts by other religious groups to share their faith and gain converts is strongly resisted, and legislation is already in place in some areas which requires government permission to convert from one faith to another. Antagonism to Christian missionary work is becoming increasingly intense, and viewed as a threat to national security and identity. Pressure to re-convert to Hinduism is strong.

A note left at the site of three bombings in the northern state of Bihar said, “Stop conversions under the pretext of social service. India is a Hindu nation. Christians leave India.”

Why? Again, this is no accidental process. The role of religion in society is exploited and corrupted to self-serving ends by those who wish to gain power. By equating faith and nationalism, politicians gain support—for who would dare contradict what is presented as an “article of faith”? Religion is once again hijacked, and the threat to religious minorities is ominous. For in situations of crisis, the majority seeks scapegoats. In a country of more than one billion people, with great competition for food and water, with most resources rapidly being depleted, it does not take much imagination to foresee inter-religious conflict of cataclysmic proportions.

When society reaches breaking point, religious toleration is a scarce commodity.

“Militancy” in religion takes many forms, yet is a very “portable” concept. To have suggested, even just a few years ago, that a militant form of Buddhism could be developed, would have seemed absurd. Such an idea is no longer laughable. Even Buddhism, which is so linked with concepts of peace, tranquility and acceptance, has been hijacked to support nationalistic and political concerns.

For example in the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan, Buddhism is the state religion. Conversion to other religions is illegal. Attacks on minority religious groups are increasing. Christians have been arrested and beaten. Some have been forced to leave the country.

Again, why? Because the religion of the majority—in this case, Buddhism—is viewed as essential to social stability and order. Nothing is to disturb society, and so a hostile and antagonistic attitude is developed towards other religious faiths. The result: severe restrictions on religious freedoms, and the potential for violent conflict.

On the international scene, such exploitation of religion for political and secular objectives does not augur well for the fundamental human rights. The pressures of overpopulation, resource depletion, famine, disease, pollution, crime and so on all impact society in negative ways that contribute to the desire to hijack religion for personal and national purposes.

Consequently the currently accepted norms of religious liberty and freedom of conscience will come under increasing attack. While nations nominally subscribe to such international instruments as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, such documents no longer seem to be well respected. One high-ranking diplomat in a recent conversation at the UN referred dismissively to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as “western philosophy,” and that her country did not believe it should be bound by such agreements.

Without becoming alarmist, such a situation should be cause for grave concern. When religion is hijacked, so is our fundamental humanity. Religion lies close to the heart of who we claim to be. So in exploiting religion, we exploit ourselves. As a result, multiplied millions are deceived by duplicitous leaders who claim to be speaking in the name of faith. What hope is there for separation of church and state when religion is employed in the service of politicians?

In his latest annual report, Professor Abdelfattah Amor, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance writes:

“The worldwide trend as regards religion and belief is towards increased intolerance and discrimination against minorities and a failure to take account of their specific requirements and needs…. Sadly, intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief are ever-present in the world…. An appraisal of the status of freedom of religion and belief in the world today reveals a somewhat negative and disturbing picture.”⁴

There is no question that the intermixing of religion and politics will become and even greater part of this “negative and disturbing picture.” Amor goes on to describe what he calls “the ever-worsening scourge of extremism. This phenomenon, which is complex, having religious, political and ethical roots, and has diverse objectives (purely political and/or religious), respects no religion. It has hijacked Islam (as in Afghanistan, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, the Philippines and Turkey), Judaism (in Israel), Christianity (in Georgia) and Hinduism (in India)… The casualties of this aberration are… religions themselves.”⁵

The casualties are religions themselves. And, it should be added, the freedom to believe, practice and worship that go along with religious tolerance and freedom of conscience.

The irony of the hijacking of religion is that the aim—to create a unified society based on the enforcement of one religion—is an illusion. The result is the complete opposite: the fracturing and destruction of society, and the degrading and debasing of humanity. For as any individual’s religious freedom is violated, we are all violated. For there can be no truth in force and imposition, in hatred and violence. In the words of Thomas Clarke, “All violence in religion is irreligious, and that whoever is wrong, the persecutor cannot be right.”⁶

That is the true tragedy—that in enforcing religion, hijacking the belief system—then truth is turned to error, right becomes wrong, and the whole set of moral and ethical values are debased and corrupted. The result for religious liberty is devastating.

For hijacked religion is no religion at all.

1. Personal interview, February 14, 2001.

2. Personal interview, February 14, 2001.

3. USCIRF report 2001, p.123.

4. E/CN.4/2001/63, pp.46-47, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.2001.63.En.

5. Ibid, p. 46.

6. Thomas Clarke, History of Intolerance (1819 ed.), Vol. 1, p. 3, available at http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br/br101.htm

© Jonathan Gallagher.   Visit http://www.jonathangallagher.com

A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.

Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a “victory for religious liberty”.

The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.

Islington council said it was “disappointed” and was considering an appeal against the ruling.

…

Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.

She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

Read the full story at

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7499248.stm

The New Blue Laws
They’re about giving workers a break, not forcing church attendance.
By Paul L. Edenfield
Updated Monday, April 7, 2008, at 7:39 AM ET

Do workers have a right to Sundays off?
In a recent night-shift ad, Hillary Clinton promised that she would work hard to help workers who toil after hours. Barack Obama, for his part, has issued a call for relief for people “juggling work and parenting.” The candidates’ concern about the demands of employment comes at a time when businesses increasingly try to stay open for most of the hours of the day, seven days a week. While keeping our shopping malls abuzz, these frenetic routines also make it harder for workers to get the weekend off to relax or spend time with their families. The ramped-up pace is due in part to the success businesses have had in attacking laws that improve workers’ lives—like mandatory-closing laws, which require many stores to close on Sundays or holidays.

Mandatory-closing laws sound, yes, like another name for “blue laws,” the Colonial-era restrictions in the name of morality that also closed stores on Sunday (and even banned frivolous dress). Their original purpose was to encourage church attendance. Because of this history, these laws are often still thought of as paternalistic intrusions that impose one Christian version of morality. It doesn’t help that they had a brief resurgence during the teetotaling era of Prohibition, courtesy of the temperance movement. But mandatory-closing laws have since shed their old cloak and taken on a new purpose: protecting the interests of workers who otherwise could not rely on a regular, guaranteed day off.

Read more at http://www.slate.com/id/2188240/