Action Groups Forming Now!

Small action groups are needed to promote religious liberty, and that right now, to work for passage of the Marriage Amendment. Such groups will be organized as local chapters of the North American Religious Liberty Association – West, or NARLA-West. We expect to organize chapters in Arizona, San Diego, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Fresno, and Sacramento. Of course, groups can form wherever two or three are willing to work together in the cause of religious liberty.

If you would like to be part of a small group dedicated to religious liberty, please send an e.mail to pat@churchstate.org, and let us know the following: 

    1) Your contact info;
    2) Are you a NARLA member;
    3) Do you hold any office in your local church;
    4) What church you attend;

We will connect people geographically.

The first meetings should be held in September, so please respond right away!

The Church State Council Welcomes
Elder Matthew F. McMearty

In June, the Pacific Union Conference officially called Elder Matthew F. McMearty as Associate Director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty in the Sacramento office of the Church State Council. Matt completed his studies at the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in May, always believing the Lord would open the way to work in religious liberty when his studies were completed. 

Elder McMearty has been well prepared by his years of pastoral ministry with the Michigan Conference and academic studies in Business Logistics, Theology, and Church and State to address complex issues of religious freedom, separation of church and state, and Sabbath accommodation in the workplace. Matt will be responsible for monitoring legislation in the five state legislatures of the Pacific Union: Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Hawaii. He is also available for preaching and teaching appointments. “I am thrilled to welcome Matt to the Pacific Union,” said Alan J. Reinach, Esq., the director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty. “When I was a student at Pacific Union College, Matt was the one who first introduced me to the writings of A.T. Jones concerning the principles of righteousness by faith and its relation to religious liberty. It is truly remarkable that the Lord has brought us together thirty years later to be partners in ministry.”

Elder McMearty will be moving to Sacramento from South Texas and prayerfully expects to get settled in time to enroll his kids in school for the fall term. He is joined by his wife, Tammy, an elementary school teacher, Tiffany, who will attend Universidad Adventista del Plata in Argentina for one year through Adventist Colleges Abroad program, Michael, a junior in academy, and Cherie, a fifth grader. Matt and Tammy met at Pacific Union College and look forward to returning to California.

Please feel free to call Matt at 916-446-2552 at the Church State Council Office in Sacramento.


Hawaii Celebrates the First Religious Liberty Festival in North America

On July 12 and 13, the Honolulu Central Seventh-day Adventist Church hosted the Hawaii Festival of Religious Liberty, the first time such a festival has been conducted in North America. More than a dozen different faith communities were represented by the music and discussions during the two day festival. The mayor of Honolulu, the Hon. Mufi Hanneman, welcomed the Festival to Honolulu on Sunday, and expressed his appreciation for our efforts to promote peace and respect among people of differing religious beliefs.   Read More


From the Office of General Counsel

The Office of General Counsel has begun a search to add another lawyer to the legal staff for the GC and our other clients. With some rearranging of schedules to accommodate our lawyers’ needs, Lisa Burrow who has been doing our immigration work on staff will continue to do so under a new arrangement with a local law firm. She will be working part-time as she juggles her work and family needs. Lisa has done a great service on our team and will be continuing as an extension of the OGC in her new capacity. Thus, we are looking for a full-time attorney to come in-house with OGC. For more information, the link below describes this position:
http://www.adventistlawyer.com/article.php?id=23
 
Please feel free to share this information with any Adventist attorney who you might know would have an interest. Of course, you are also welcome to consider this opportunity if the job looks like a good fit for you and you have an interest.


The Carlsbad Northcoast Christian Fellowship of Seventh-day Adventist Hosts Freedom Day and Secret Courts!
Introduction by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.

The Carlsbad Northcoast Christian Fellowship of Seventh-day Adventist hosted a prominent local judge for a celebration of Freedom Day on May 10th, sponsored by NARLA-West. The following report, Freedom Day and Secret Courts, was prepared by NARLA-West Board member, Dr. C. Norman Farley. The editor would like to add a couple of preliminary observations: the frank and public discussion of government secrecy runs the risk of fomenting conspiracy theories.  NARLA-West does not countenance any conspiracy theories.  Judge Ramirez was directing his remarks to laws put into effect by 9/11. (The Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Act, and The Military Commissions Act).   Judge Ramirez was not alluding to any conspiracy theory. As Christians, our message is not secret or esoteric but what God has revealed for all to learn the way of salvation.

Moreover, keep in mind that while “we the people” do not know the content of government secrets, the fact that the government is keeping secrets is not itself a secret. Thus, this article is based on the public record, on things that are known, not speculation about what is not known, as with conspiracy theories. Read Dr. Farley's report


TOP NEWS STORIES

Congress Votes to Immunize Lawbreaking Telecoms, Legalize Warrantless Eavesdropping

Despite the 4th Amendment’s requirement that warrants cannot be issued without probable cause, and describing the particular thing to be searched, Congress has decided to immunize the phone companies from liability for cooperating with the government’s domestic spying operation, and to largely permit such blatantly unconstitutional activities to continue. Among the many good articles on this act of Congress, see, for example:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa_vote/index.html
(please paste link above into your web browser)

South Carolina Governor Signs Bill Allowing Display of Ten Commandments

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) _ Governor Sanford has signed into law a bill allowing governments to post the Ten Commandments and The Lord's Prayer as part of so-called historical displays.

It is the latest of several religious-based bills to become law in the state. Last month, the Republican governor signed legislation advising local governments how to legally pray before meetings.
Earlier this month, he let a bill authorizing an "I Believe" license plate to become law.

Marc Stern with the American Jewish Congress says the bills are an obvious endorsement of religion by legislators in an election year. The group is looking to sue over the license tag.

Supporters say it's time for Americans to defend the country's founding beliefs in religion. 


Barack Obama Announces Support for Faith-Based Funding

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently made a major announcement regarding his intent to continue and expand the so-called "faith-based initiative." Below are statements from two organizations that are friends of the Adventist Church, and coalition partners in the effort to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Each statement reflects different concerns that we share. The Jewish statement focuses on the problem of demanding that faith-based institutions disregard their religious distinctives in hiring. The Baptist statement emphasizes the problem of providing funding directly to churches. Both of these concerns are valid. Read More


RESOURCES YOU CAN USE

We have a number of resources to highlight on the issue of marriage, gay marriage, Proposition 8, etc.

1. It’s About the Kids, Stupid, by Nicholas P. Miller, Esq. is an article discussing the secular and social impacts of gay marriage. It is a book review of The Future of Marriage by David Blankenhorn. Read Article

2. Equality & Matrimony, by James Standish, Esq. is an equally superb article originally published in the Sept./Oct. issue of Liberty magazine by the congressional liaison for the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/456/

3. Seventh-day Adventist statements regarding marriage may be found on our website at www.churchstate.org
back to top
 

Hawaii Celebrates First Religious Liberty
Festival in North America 
Reported by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.

What a Blessing!  On July 12 and 13, the Honolulu Central Seventh-day Adventist Church hosted the Hawaii Festival of Religious Liberty, the first time such a festival has been conducted in North America. More than a dozen different faith communities were represented by the music and discussions during the two day festival. The mayor of Honolulu, the Hon. Mufi Hanneman, welcomed the Festival to Honolulu on Sunday, and expressed his appreciation for our efforts to promote peace and respect among people of differing religious beliefs.

The purpose of the Festival was to thank God for religious freedom, as well as appreciating our founding fathers and our elected officials for their role in preserving our civil and religious freedoms. The Festival also included numerous interviews and discussions among leaders of many faiths addressing the principles of religious freedom. Presentations covered a broad range of issues, such as, comparing notes among faith traditions and exploring the theological, historical, and legal foundations of religious liberty. These presentations were recorded and are expected to be featured in broadcasts on Freedom’s Ring radio, as well as Liberty Insider on 3ABN.

The Festival was intended to build on existing interfaith work in Hawaii and to project the Adventist Church as a leader in promoting religious liberty and mutual respect among people of differing faiths. The effort was clearly appreciated by many faith leaders and government officials alike.

The Festival keynote speaker Sunday was J. Brent Walker, Esq., director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty in Washington, D.C., while the Sabbath sermon was given by Elder Ted Wilson, Vice President of the General Conference, who preached on the parable of the Good Samaritan. Special guests included Dr. John Graz, director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty for the General Conference; Lincoln Steed and Melissa Reid, from Liberty magazine; and Nicholas P. Miller, Esq., Director of Andrews University’s International Religious Liberty Institute. Two Board members of the North American Religious Liberty Association – West also attended, Dorothy Keith and Deborah Fountain.

On Sunday, members of the Hawaii Senate and House of Representatives presented resolutions honoring the Church State Council for conducting the Hawaii Festival. Special honors were also given by Dr. John Graz, from the General Conference, to key people who made the Festival possible, including Walt Nelson, pastor of the Honolulu Central Church; Ralph Watts III, Hawaii conference president, Earl Stuckey, Jr., the Festival’s music coordinator, and Alan J. Reinach, Esq., the Festival’s coordinator. In total, nine State Senators and Representatives attended either on Sabbath or Sunday. Rep. John Mizuno intends to introduce legislation designating July as religious freedom month in Hawaii, and designating a religious liberty day, as well.

Dr. Graz challenged us to conduct additional Festivals in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Next year, the first International Festival of Religious Liberty will be conducted in Lima, Peru, on November 21st.

Make your plans now to join us for this historic occasion, as we seek to highlight the importance of religious freedom 
back to top

Freedom Day and Secret Courts
Reported by Dr. C. Norman Farley

On May 10, at a Freedom Day Celebration hosted by the Carlsbad Northcoast Christian Fellowship of Seventh-day Adventist, Judge Victor Ramirez spoke about how rights protected by Habeas Corpus (Amendments 4, 5, 6 & 14) have been affected since 9/11. He touched on the USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act, emphasizing the unprecedented degree of secrecy and secret courts prevalent since 9-11. The following article is based on the author’s recollection, and his continued research, since no recording or transcript was made of Judge Ramirez’ presentation. No transcription or recordings of the event were made so the opinions expressed represent the recollections of the author. Judge Ramirez (R) was Judge of the Superior Court in San Diego and was the recipient of the University Of San Diego School Of Law’s Most Distinguished Alumni Jurist Award. A brief constitutional history was presented to lay a foundation for Judge Ramirez’ presentation.

The U.S. Constitution was signed on September 17, 1787 but the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments) was not ratified until December 15, 1791. James Madison proposed amendments to the Constitution to settle a conflict between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists believed that the Constitution, by separating the government into three branches, was adequate to protect individual rights. The Federalists were also concerned that a listing of Rights could prove dangerous, serving to limit rather than protect such rights. The Federalists believed the Constitution did not require amending. Others, including Thomas Jefferson, argued that the Constitution failed to adequately protect individual rights. They believed the “necessary and proper clause” of the Constitution gave Congress too much power. This group became known as the Anti-Federalists, who insisted there be limitations of power placed on the Federal Government to protect individual freedoms.

Out of this struggle was born the Bill of Rights which has been the foundation of a free society for more than two centuries. These amendments protect freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, the denial of unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel and unusual punishment and no compelled self incrimination. In short, Life, Liberty and Property may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas states: “We should always start, when we read the Constitution, by reading the Declaration . . .”ⁱ  Justice Thomas, as well as other unitary judges, contends that the Declaration of Independence contains the structure of the Constitution. The weight of historical scholarship rejects any hint that the Declaration of Independence was ever considered part of the legal foundation of the new nation. Instead, it was written to justify separation from England. It was a revolutionary polemic, not law. In writing the Declaration, Jefferson invoked the “Laws of Nature” and “Unalienable Rights” which are derived from “Nature’s God.” He includes among these Rights “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property).” Furthermore, he proposes that the Government derives its power from “the consent of the governed.” Jefferson didn’t invent this theory; it came from the pen of the humanist philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Locke proposed that “The State of Nature” was governed by the “Laws of Nature” so that humans are “by nature” “free, equal and independent.” He therefore proposes that humans are granted “Life, Liberty and Property” by the Laws of Nature – NOT by the government.

To Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, it was not only necessary to establish a system of checks and balances in the Constitution but to establish a Bill of Explicit “Rights” to prevent the government from infringing on the “Natural Rights” granted to the citizenry directly from “Nature” and “Nature’s God”.

The Dire Effects of Disaster

9/11 has immersed the nation in a climate of change. Disaster creates conditions particularly fitted to foster change and alter belief systems. Every politician knows disaster can be manipulated to abandon previously held values. Following 9-11 fifty seven per-cent of the population expressed a willingness to exchange their civil liberties for security. In the name of security, Americans have been surrendering the right of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in one’s home and person against unreasonable searches and seizures; the obligation to obtain a search warrant only upon the basis of probable cause, and the right to a speedy trial and due process of law.

These are the principles which have established the United States as a leader among nations and in part have become known as the “Rule of Law.” This is what all Presidents and Legislators are sworn to uphold and defend. This is the subject Judge Ramirez addressed. The Constitution does not recognize a war time exemption from respecting individual rights. No branch of government is above the law, or has the right to trample on individual rights in the name of national security. A functioning Democracy must have in place procedures for proper transparency, verification and accountability.

Virtually every president since Washington has justified the withholding of information from Congress. Congress often fails to exercise its Constitutional power of oversight, and has knowingly granted the President some of its power. The War Powers Act of 1973 is a classic example, wherein Congress delegated some of its authority with respect to declaring war to the Executive. Currently, a bipartisan committee is recommending new legislation, since the War Powers Act “has failed to promote co-operation between the executive and legislative branchesⁱⁱ.”

Three times in the past the government, during a time of war, has temporarily altered Habeas Corpus to prevent potential perils. A nation that operates within the rule of law expects the Executive to perform according to the bounds of those rules or be held accountable. “We the people” have a right to expect a reasonable working relationship between Congress and the Executive – especially in a time of war. The Executive branch, however, has informed us that the war on Terror presents a permanent crisis. The language of National Survival is raised to justify incursion into civil liberties protections. Every submission to these strategies leads to increased executive power. Secrecy is routinely but wrongly invoked in the name of national security. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy, which requires transparency, verification and accountability.

These tactics have led to an inordinate increase of executive power and provided an avenue to circumvent both Congress and the courts. A “war model” which presumes a permanent condition of war and a constant threat to National Security makes “aggrandizement of the Presidency urgently necessaryⁱⁱⁱ.” Congress enacted The Federal Register Act of 1935, The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, and the Freedom of Information Act of 1978 to insist on proper oversight and publication of proceedings because secret laws are the antithesis of a free and open society.

The Creeping Culture of Secrecy

In recent years there has been an increase of unpublicized secret laws, and secrecy has become a central issue. In 1997 “The Executive Branch assumed authority both for structuring and classification systems and for deciding the grounds upon which secrets should be created and maintained.”^iv This has resulted in the ability of the Executive to classify information as Top Secret or Secret and make the process of transparency, verification and accountability either difficult or altogether impossible. In the case of Valerie Plame it was impossible to proceed because the evidence had been classified and was unavailable – no evidence no case!

When it comes to the process of transparency Sean Gonsalves states: “We’re talking everything from secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to secret Presidential directives and transportation security orders.”^v

In August of 2007 the court was petitioned to make public the rulings of the FISA Court, which implicates the privacy of American citizens, after redacting classified information. The court claimed it didn’t have the expertise to decide what information should be redacted! There has also been a decline in the publications of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). “One secret OLC opinion . . . holds that executive orders, which are binding on executive branch agencies and are published in The Federal Register, can be unilaterally abrogated by the President without public notice."^vi  Such orders undercut the power of Congress to respond to the charge and exercise its own power. “Worse, the OLC policy ... implies a right to actively mislead Congress and the public."^vii  On April 30, 2008 a Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government” in which Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a non-governmental policy research and advocacy organization testified. Here is a summary of his testimony:

Secret law that is inaccessible to the public is inherently antithetical to democracy and foreign to the tradition of open publication that has characterized most of American legal history. Yet there has been a discernable increase in secret law and regulation in recent years. This testimony describes several of the major categories of secret law, including secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, secret opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, secret Presidential directives, secret transportation security directives, and more. Legislative intervention may be required to reverse the growth of secret law. ^viii

Secret Laws are growing and they seriously affect fundamental political controversies over such issues as domestic surveillance, torture and a host of other issues.

The FISA Act

Congress enacted the FISA Act in 1978, largely in reaction to the abuses of the Nixon administration. It restricted domestic spying, and laid down rules and procedures to protect the privacy of Americans. In the CRS Report for Congress, Attorney General Griffin Bell testified: “President Carter stated it very well in announcing this bill when he said that ‘one of the most difficult tasks in a free society like our own is the correlation between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation’s security on the one hand, and the preservation of basic human rights on the other.’”^ix

In the wake of 9/11, the Executive Branch, its attorneys and lawyers from the Justice Department and National Security Agency authorized a program to go around the FISA court without FISA court knowledge. The FISA court was established to handle the most sensitive national security issues but it required the inspection and order of a judge which protected “privacy rights”. The reason offered for going around the FISA Court was “the need for speed.”^x Judge Ramirez especially discussed the legal difficulty that going around FISA law had created.

The Patriot Act and FISA

The Patriot Act introduced sweeping changes to U.S. Law which included amendments to FISA and more than a dozen other privacy laws. In this article we will consider only changes to FISA laws. It must be recalled that the President ordered wireless wiretapping prior to the Patriot Act. Section 215 of FISA under the Patriot Act expands the power of the FBI to spy on ordinary people living in the U.S. including U.S. citizens.

    •  The FBI need not show probable cause if the person they seek to
        investigate is involved in criminal activity
    •  The FBI can investigate persons because of the improper use of
        Freedom of Speech
    •  People may be investigated because of the books they read or because
       of the web sites they view
    •  Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing
        the fact to anyone else – this affects Freedom of Speech guaranteed in
        the 1st amendment
    •   Subjects of surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been
        compromised.

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, he added an addendum stating that “he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the Act’s expanded powers.” After reporters left the White House signing, he issued a “Signing Statement”. A “signing statement” is an official document in which a President lays out his interpretation of a new law. In this signing statement he states: “He did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that despite the laws’ requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.” ^xi

Warrantless Wiretap

Few would dispute that some laws needed updating to meet the changing world situation which 9-11 presented. The President, however, considered himself, “above the existing FISA Law.” Ultimately the President publically admitted to a “demonstrably impeachable offense,” in fact, it was the same offense that was in the impeachment charges against President Nixon. The President also stated that he had authorized such surveillance “more than 30 times since the September 11th attacks”. Now here is a very startling thought for the public to ponder. The President stated that he also informed leading members of Congress. This becomes a very important issue. Did the Congress consent when they were informed that the President and The National Security Agency (NSA) were about to intentionally disregard FISA law and the 4th amendment?

In order to circumvent the disastrous legal outcomes of this warrantless wiretapping and secret presidential order, the communication companies involved are seeking legal immunity in the courts. This wiretap affected the privacy rights of perhaps millions of citizens. While this case was pending, Congress approved a bill granting retroactive immunity to the phone companies, AT&T and Verizon. Qwest, to its credit, listened to its general counsel who stated that what the President and NSA wanted done was illegal.

U. S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that (Warrantless wiretapping) “undisputedly violates the 4th amendment . . . Violates the 1st amendment, and violates the Separation of Powers . . . The Constitution itself has been violated.”^xii

What you don’t know will hurt you so here is a further list of secret acts which have been created by the Executive since September 11.

   •   Secret military tribunals have been created
   •   Secret court proceedings closed to the public have been ordered
   •   A massive detention of aliens has been directed
   •   Detainees have been denied access to counsel and courts. Secrecy
       has been exercised for an astounding array of material and
       operations since 1997
   •   Response to Congressional inquiries has been refused
   •   Intrusive investigation of citizens (wireless wiretapping) has been
       ordered in contradiction of FISA demands

“These secret actions have created a fundamental constitutional shift in favor of Presidential power.” ^xiii

Glen Greenwald, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer quotes the President as stating: “The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch. . .in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . .” This accounts for the reason Harriet Myers, Carl Rove and others, when subpoenaed, have refused to appear to testify but instead have invoked Executive privilege. We may conclude that any limits Congress attempts to place on the use of executive power will likely be ignored. It is small wonder that Judge Ramirez spent much of his time dealing with secrecy and the effect it exerts on the Rule of Law.

The Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus and the "Rule of Law"

The laws of the Constitution were designed to remain enforced even in extraordinary circumstances, [such as terrorism].  Liberty and security can only be reconciled in a democracy within the bounds of "rule of law" and our founders decreed that habeas corpus was a rite of primary significance.   

In 2006, in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to prosecute detainees at Guantánamo Bay “lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72” ^xiv

“On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without Congressional authorization, . . .”^xv

The failure of transparency and verification finally reached the court in the case of Lakhdar Boumediene a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was held in detention at Guantánamo Bay. His case challenged the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion upholding the Habeas Corpus Laws of The Constitution. A reading of Justice Kennedy’s opinion is highly recommended. It takes a much needed step in alleviating the concerns of Judges such as Judge Ramirez.

In the decision of Boumediene vs. Bush June 12, 2008, the court upheld the long-standing principle of Habeas Corpus for the detainees in Guantánamo. Habeas Corpus is the right to challenge detention before a judge and to seek due process which is at the heart of the Rule of Law.” “Rule of Law” makes it plain that jailers do not determine one’s fate nor does the Executive Branch. It is the law of Habeas Corpus which upholds the belief expressed in the Constitution that “all men are created equal and are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights.” This law separates a civilized society from “the rule of the jungle” and from the “might makes right” philosophy. It helps us understand that ethics is not a law of black and white, of us and them. In fact, the world’s greatest ethicist proclaimed that “we should treat others as we wished to be treated.”

Will Rogers once quipped “I’ve traveled a long way and some of the roads weren’t paved” The road to effectively deal with terrorism and maintain individual freedoms was not and is not currently paved - but the process to pave the road has been invented. The road paving process includes transparency, verification and accountability through the legislative and court systems. The secrecy road leaves only the illusion of freedom.
So the next time you consider the barbaric acts of a nation which marches to the tune of a different drummer – remember this – the world wants to know if we believe what we have declared in our Declaration, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights or if we are just expedient empiricists – true proponent of philosophy “might makes right” who at will deprive the “natural rights” granted to all by “Nature’s God”.

In the next article we will consider the role technology plays in a secret society. Judge Ramirez correctly referred to this as “Big Ears.”

i)         “A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas” - Imprimis, Oct. 2007, Vol. 36,
        Number 10

back to top

 

Barak Obama Announces Support for
Faith-based Funding
Introduction by Alan Reinach

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama recently made a major announcement regarding his intent to continue and expand the so-called "faith-based initiative." Below are statements from two organizations that are friends of the Adventist Church, and coalition partners in the effort to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Each statement reflects different concerns that we share. The Jewish statement focuses on the problem of demanding that faith-based institutions disregard their religious distinctives in hiring. The Baptist statement emphasizes the problem of providing funding directly to churches. Both of these concerns are valid.

The inclusion of these analyses in this newsletter should not be construed as either an endorsement or a criticism of any candidate. Policy positions announced by candidates often undergo significant change if and when the candidate is elected. The Jewish and Baptist statements point out valid concerns should the next president seek to continue or expand funding of faith-based organizations. 
 
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Welcomes Sen. Barack Obama’s Intention to Continue the “Faith-Based Initiative”; Expresses Concern Over Limitations to Religious Liberty

Today, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America – the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization representing nearly 1,000 congregations around the United States – welcomed the Sen. Barack Obama’s statements today announcing his intention to continue the partnership between the federal government and faith-based and community charities known currently as President Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative.” The UOJCA has been a leading proponent of such partnerships through legislation and policy for more than a decade. See http://www.ou.org/index.php/public_affairs/article_cat/C590/

In an address delivered today in Ohio, Sen. Obama stated his recognition that faith-based social welfare charities are “well placed to offer help” to those in need and that America’s challenges are “too big for government to solve alone.” Sen. Obama announced his intention to provide more funding for federal social welfare programs and plans to better train faith-based and neighborhood entities to apply for and receive federal grants. Sen. Obama laid out his guiding principles for the initiative, should he become President, which are that faith-based organizations:

   •  Cannot use federal funds for religious proselytizing or any sectarian
      activity;
   •  Cannot discriminate in who federally funded services are provided to;
   •  May not take religion into account in hiring staff, as otherwise
       protected by the Civil Rights Act, for positions paid with government
       funds;
   •  Must demonstrate their program’s effectiveness.

In reacting to Sen. Obama’s address, UOJCA public policy director Nathan J. Diament, issued the following statement:

The Orthodox Union welcomes Senator Obama’s recognition that America’s houses of worship and other faith-based organizations play an indispensable role in our society, including in our efforts to serve those in need. We applaud Sen. Obama’s intention to continue the “faith-based initiative,” maintain its White House and federal department offices, and fund federal social welfare program more substantially, and we agree with Sen. Obama that federal grantees must not use public funds for sectarian purposes nor may they discriminate among those who are in need and seek to be served.

The Orthodox Union is concerned, however, with Sen. Obama’s willingness to limit the rights of faith-based entities, codified in the Civil Rights Act and affirmed by a unanimous Supreme Court decision, to hire personnel who share the organization’s faith. A faith-based charity should not have to forsake its religious liberty or dilute its religious character to obtain a federal grant. Beyond the matter of principle, insisting that faith-based groups waive their legally protected rights may well undermine Sen. Obama’s stated goal of having “all hands on deck” as many faith-based groups, especially small ones, will opt out of government partnerships if this is the price of admission

Baptist Joint Committee responds to Obama speech on White House faith-based office

In an address on federal government partnerships with religious entities, Sen. Barack Obama announced plans to refashion and rename the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Obama said he would create a council focused on government partnerships with community and faith-based groups that would be a “crucial part” of his administration and would ensure no religious entity accepting taxpayer funds would be permitted to use the funds to proselytize or discriminate.

Before the speech, The Associated Press published an article under the headline “Obama to expand Bush’s faith based programs,” which mischaracterized Obama’s proposal and touched off a firestorm of controversy. The outlines of the senator’s approach, however, were clarified as the speech itself was released.

While recognizing that many challenges will arise in the implementation of his proposal, BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said many of the senator’s comments are reassuring. “The speech reflects a keen appreciation for the separation of church and state’s role to ensure religious liberty even while promoting partnerships between government and religious institutions,” Hollman said.

Hollman noted, however, that one problematic aspect of the speech was its reference to direct government funding of houses of worship. Though Obama noted that federal dollars that go to houses of worship and community groups “can only be used on secular programs,” Hollman urged caution. “The Baptist Joint Committee would never recommend money going directly to houses of worship because of the risk of entanglement and the practical difficulties that may threaten the institution’s integrity. We think best practices, legally and practically, weigh heavily toward creating a separate corporate entity if a house of worship is inclined to seek government funding for services it provides.”

Religious entities have long partnered with government to provide social services under the same rules that apply to other nonprofits. The BJC has been critical of efforts to alter the traditional way in which religious entities and the government have cooperated to the extent that such efforts blur important boundaries between church and state.

Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
200 Maryland Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002
(202) 544-4226 bjc@BJConline.org 
(back to top)