Calendar
WASHINGTON, DC
2008 NARLA Capitol Hill Summit
Date: 6/12 - 6/14
To register call:
Lissa Bedford at:
(301) 680-6687
or e-mail: bedfordm@gc.adventist.org
CARSON, CA
Hispanic Youth Religious Liberty Rally
Carson Spanish Church
21828 S. Dolores St
Date: 6/25 - 6/28
Speakers: Alan J. Reinach, Lincoln Steed, Sam Hernandez, and Fabian Carballo
HONOLULU, HAWAII
Hawaii Festival of Religious Freedom
Honolulu Central Church
2313 Nuuanu Ave,
Date: July 12 & 13
Hawaii Brochure
Special Guest Speakers include:
- Ted Wilson, General Conference Vice President;
- John Graz, Executive Director, International Religious Liberty Association;
- J. Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty;
- Lincoln Steed, Editor, Liberty Magazine;
- Melissa Reid, Associate Editor, Liberty Magazine;
- Nicholas Miller, Director, Andrews University International Religious Liberty Institute;
- Alan J. Reinach, President, Church State Council
SOQUEL, CA
Soquel Campmeeting
Religious Liberty Seminar
Date: July 21-25
Speakers: Alan J. Reinach
and Nicholas P. Miller
LIBERTY CRUISE
December 3-7 2008
Freedom’s Ring
Radio Broadcast
Schedule
Teacher Teaches Religion in the Public Schools
High School Teacher, Fabian Carballo, discusses how he incorporates religion legally into his curriculum in public school.
Broadcast date:
June 7, 2008
Presidential Candidates Surveyed on Religious Freedom
Joe
Grieboski, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy,
talks about the candidates’ positions on religious liberty.
Broadcast date:
June 14, 2008
California Outlaws Homeschooling
Nicholas
P. Miller, Esq., Director of the Andrews University International
Religious Freedom Institute, discusses an appeals court ruling that
parents cannot homeschool without being certified by the state. Broadcast date:
June 21, 2008
Texas Sized Mess
Attorney Kelly Shackleford, Liberty Legal Institute, discussing a brief
he filed regarding the religious freedom issues in the ongoing child
custody and abuse proceedings deriving from the raid on the FLDS
compound in Eldorado, Texas.
Broadcast date:
June 28, 2008
Religious Freedom in American Foreign Policy
Ambassador Robert Seiple, the first U.S. Ambassador for International
Religious Freedom, discussing the role of religious freedom in U.S.
policy ten years after passage of the International Religious Freedom
Act.
Broadcast date:
July 5, 2008
|
 |
Volume 1, No. 5, June 2008
In This Issue...
ACTION NEEDED
Invite Your Congressman to Dinner!
The annual Liberty Banquet is almost here. On June 12th, the
Seventh-day Adventist Church will be conducting its Annual Religious
Liberty Dinner in Washington, D.C. Invitations have already gone out to
Congress, to diplomats, to religious leaders, etc. This will be a
wonderful dinner. It is one thing for your Senators and
Representative to receive an invitation from church headquarters, but
quite another to receive an invitation from a constituent. You can send
an invitation to Congress in about one minute! Just click here: http://capwiz.com/narla/issues/alert/?alertid=11430206
Plan Now to Attend the Hawaii Festival of Religious Freedom!
The Hawaii Festival is an important opportunity
to celebrate religious freedom and to spread the spirit of religious freedom throughout Hawaii.
Join us for this historic event, and “proclaim liberty throughout the
land to all its inhabitants”. Leviticus 25:10 Read More….
TOP NEWS STORIES
The Battle Over Gay Marriage Heats Up
A ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution to restrict
marriage to a man and a woman was certified for the November ballot in
early June, insuring a heated campaign season over the issue of gay
marriage. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that
homosexuality has the same legal standing as race, and that state law
illegally discriminated against gays by providing “domestic
partnership” arrangements but not calling it “marriage.” If the
marriage amendment is adopted, it would effectively reverse the
decision permitting gay marriage. In light of this, ten states
joined marriage supporters in urging the California Supreme Court to
delay permitting gay marriages until the November vote, but the Court
quickly rejected this request, and cleared the way for gay marriages to
begin later in June. In related news, the New York Governor
recently signed an order directing state agencies to recognize gay
marriages performed out of state.
Christian Conscience on Trial in California Supreme Court
When ministers of all races marched in support of civil rights in the
1960s, little did they realize how their efforts to remedy the legacy
of slavery and racism would eventually be twisted into a sword aimed
directly at the church and the rights of religious believers. I
am reminded of the cynical saying: “no good deed goes
unpunished.” Recently, the California Supreme Court heard
arguments equating Christian beliefs about human sexuality with racism.
Lawyers contended that Christian physicians have no right to
bring their religious beliefs into their medical practice, in
determining what [elective, non-emergency] services they must
provide. Read More...
Mongolia: First Religious Liberty Meeting Draws Government, International Religious Freedom Leaders
International
religious liberty leaders joined members of Mongolia's government and
major religious communities on May 30th for the nation's first
religious liberty symposium, meant largely to lay groundwork for a
full-scale freedom of religion conference next year. Read More...
Students Make History in India
TEACH International reports two girls pictured in the newspaper article below, namely Jincy and Ramya, gr  aduates
of the SDA High School, Kottarakkara in Kerala, India, refused to write
their High School final year examination on Saturday. Since one
examination was scheduled for Saturday they filed a case against the
state government. The Judge upheld their case and ordered the
district to hold a special examination after sunset.
For the first time in the history of Kerala state, a special
examination was held for these two girls under the supervision of
educational authorities with police protection.
10 Commandments in the News
Source: Associated Press, May 29, 2008
The
Ten Commandments and The Lord's Prayer could be posted in South
Carolina's public buildings in a display of historical documents under
a bill going to the governor. The House agreed Thursday to
changes the Senate made, despite complaints the Pledge of Allegiance
was removed from the required documents. The House approved the
bill last year. The Senate added to the list the image of Lady Justice,
the Emancipation Proclamation and The Lord's Prayer, even though Senate
President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell said adding the prayer would invite a
legal challenge. Rep. Skipper Perry complained the Senate removed the
Pledge of Allegiance, but Rep. Greg Delleney said any delay would kill
the bill, with lawmakers adjourning June 5. A spokesman said Gov. Mark
Sanford is inclined to sign the bill but will study it
closely. Associated Press Article
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BLOGS
Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty
In theory, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not threaten
anyone’s religious freedom. Although the social and moral
implications of gay marriage are apparent to many, few realize the
significant danger posed to religious freedom by the California Supreme
Court ruling in May giving gays a constitutional right to marry.
The Court’s decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal
status as race, a protected class. Read More...
Home School Outlaws
On February 29th of this year, more than 160,000 otherwise law-abiding,
California families awoke to read the news that a California appeals
court had declared them outlaws. The crime?—home schooling their
children in violation of California compulsory school attendance
laws. And what about their parental and religious constitutional
rights? — dismissed by the court, largely on the strength of two
California state court decisions from about fifty years ago. Read More...
NARLA-WEST NEWS
Freedom Day and Secret Courts
On May 10th, Pastor Ed Bryan and members of the North Coast Christian
Fellowship, celebrated Freedom Day. Pastor Norman Farley, a
board member of NARLA-West, who also works with Church State Council,
and Judge Victor Ramirez were the invited speakers for the occasion.
Alison Agins, also a board member of NARLA-West, was also present.
Read More...
CALENDAR HIGHLIGHTS
Hawaii Festival of Religious Freedom
The Hawaii Festival is an important opportunity to celebrate religious
freedom and to spread the spirit of religious freedom throughout
Hawaii.
The first religious freedom festival ever to be conducted in North
America will be coming to Hawaii, July 12 and 13. In addition, a
special Religious Liberty Leadership Training Program will be conducted
on July 14 – 16, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. nightly. A few of the
guest speakers include Ted Wilson, General Conference Vice President;
J. Brent Walker, Executive Director, Baptist Joint Committee for
Religious Liberty; and Nicholas Miller, Director, Andrews University
International Religious Liberty Institute.
If you wish to attend, you should make your travel reservations now.
Special hotel rates have been obtained at the Pacific Beach Hotel, call
800- 367-6060, and ask for the rate for the Hawaii Festival of
Religious Freedom or visit their website at: pacificbeachhotel.com
While there is no cost to attend either the Hawaii Festival or the
Leadership Training Program, advance registration is required for the
Leadership Training Event, since there will be supper provided. Please
call Pat Silvia at 805-413-7126 or e.mail to Pat@churchstate.org.
The basic idea of these Festivals is to express gratitude for religious
freedom to God, to our nation’s founding fathers, and to our elected
officials who preserve our freedom. In addition, we need to shine a
spotlight on the urgency of learning to live together in peace, despite
our deepest differences.
Join us for this historic event, and “proclaim liberty throughout the
land to all its inhabitants”. Leviticus 25:10 See brochure
for more details: Hawaii Brochure (back to top)
Liberty Cruise
The Celebrity Cruise Liner “Infinity” leaves from Fort Lauderdale,
Florida on Wednesday afternoon, December 3rd, for a tour of the Western
Caribbean returning Sunday morning, December 7th. Thursday and
Friday are your days to explore Key West, Florida and Cozumel, Mexico.
Read More....
RESOURCES YOU CAN USE
"New Book Looks at Religious Freedom and More" by Nicole Batten
Adventists have always walked a fine line between calling attention to
important societal issues of the day — such as temperance and poverty —
and avoiding any involvement in partisan politics. Following in that
tradition, nine highly qualified experts have joined together to share
their insights and provide clarity on some of today's most pertinent
church and state issues. Read More...
Christian Conscience on Trial in California Supreme Court
By Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
When ministers of all races marched in support of civil rights in the
1960s, little did they realize how their efforts to remedy the legacy
of slavery and racism would eventually be twisted into a sword aimed
directly at the church, and the rights of religious believers. I am
reminded of the cynical saying: “no good deed goes unpunished.” This
week, the California Supreme Court heard arguments equating Christian
beliefs about human sexuality with racism. Lawyers contended that
Christian physicians have no right to bring their religious beliefs
into their medical practice, in determining what [elective,
non-emergency] services they must provide.
This case involves Christian doctors who serve in a family planning
clinic, and help couples achieve their desire to bear children.
According to the lawyer representing the doctors, with whom I spoke
personally, when a lesbian couple came to the clinic and met with the
doctors, they agreed to provide various services. But they also
informed them that should artificial insemination be required, the
patients would be referred to another clinic, and the doctors would
assume liability for any costs not paid by insurance. The doctors
ethically insured that the lesbian couple would receive the desired
medical services in a timely and professional manner.
Advocates for the patients do not want a legal doctrine that respects
mutually the rights of patients and physicians. They insist that the
patients’ rights must prevail, and that physicians have no right of
conscience. None. Lawyers argued to the court that religion must not be
permitted to play any role in the decision whether to accept a patient,
or whether to provide a given service.
You can see where this leads. Next, they will argue that ob/gyns have no right to refuse to perform abortions.
In light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of
gay marriage, it seems likely that the physicians will lose this case.
The Supreme Court held that homosexuality is a protected class,
equivalent to race. The jury may well learn that the doctors refused to
perform services because of their religious convictions, yet be
instructed that if they refused to provide medical services because the
patients were lesbian, they were guilty of illegal discrimination. The
jury may not be permitted to consider the validity of any religious
defense.
Another troubling aspect of this case is its implications for religious
accommodation in general. The physicians were employees of the medical
clinic which is also being sued. The clinic had an obligation to
accommodate the religious beliefs of the doctors, under the same
Federal and state laws that protect Adventists who refuse to work on
Sabbath for religious reasons. Will the court ignore these laws, and
insist that the clinic is guilty of discrimination against the
patients, when it obeyed its obligation to provide religious
accommodation to its employees? This would undermine the already
weakened legal protections for religious accommodation of employees.
The Church State Council filed a brief in this case, urging the Supreme
Court to respect the free exercise of religion as a fundamental right.
At least one justice recognized that to rule against the doctors would
require the court to consider their free exercise rights. Should the
doctors lose, the principle and right of free exercise of religion may
also suffer further erosion.
The case is entitled: North Coast Women’s Health Center v. Benitez. You can read our brief at: churchstate.org/article.php. (back to top)
Mongolia: First Religious Liberty Meeting Draws Government, International Religious Freedom Leaders
Source: Adventist News Network
Religious liberty leaders joined members of Mongolia's government and
major religious communities May 30 for the nation's first religious
liberty symposium, meant largely to lay groundwork for a full-scale
freedom of religion conference next year.
"This is an historic day for Mongolia in hosting this symposium on
increasing religious tolerance," said Samdan Tsedendamba, secretary of
the country's Council on Religious Affairs.
Mongolians enjoy considerable freedom of religion, said John Graz,
secretary-general of the International Religious Liberty Association,
which jointly sponsored the event with the Northern Asian nation's
Council of Religious Affairs. Graz joined more than 50 religious and
government leaders for the meeting, which included a review of the
United Nation's Documents on Religious Freedom.
Mongolia is home to nearly 3 million people, 50 percent of whom are Buddhist. About 40 percent claim no religion.
The Adventist Church's IRLA representative in Mongolia, Paul Kotanko,
was invited to hold a forthcoming similar meeting at the Dashjoilin
Buddhist Monastery. Organizers said last week's meeting will also lead
to the 3rd Asian Congress on Religious Liberty next September.
Established in 1893, the IRLA is present in some 80 countries and is
the world's largest non-sectarian forum dedicated to religious freedom
(back to top)
Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty
by Alan Reinach (reprinted from Religious Liberty blog dated 5/30/08: www.religiousliberty.info
In theory, allowing homosexual couples to marry should not threaten
anyone’s religious freedom. Although the social and moral implications
of gay marriage are apparent to many, few realize the significant
danger posed to religious freedom by the California Supreme Court
ruling in May giving gays a constitutional right to marry. The Court’s
decision now elevates homosexuality to the same legal status as race, a
protected class. This Court has refused to grant religious freedom the
same status as a fundamental right, instead expressing doubt about the
free exercise of religion and ruling against religious freedom
consistently in a series of decisions over the past fifteen years. The
net result is a legal imbalance where gay rights enjoy maximum
protection, and the rights of individual religious conscience enjoy
very little protection.
It is important to reiterate at the outset of this discussion that
while the Seventh-day Adventist Church upholds the biblical teachings
on sexual morality — that sexual intimacy is a gift of God to be
reserved for the marriage relation between a man and a woman – we also
uphold the biblical doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ – that He
died as an atoning sacrifice for all who would accept Him by faith. The
love of God is not exclusive. Hence, this discussion of the conflict
between gay rights and religious freedom is not intended as an attack
on gays, nor should the problems posed by gay marriage give rise to
hostility or prejudice against gays.
Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage. Thereafter,
Boston required adoption agencies to serve gays. Although Catholic
Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in the city, no
accommodation was offered for their religious objections to placing
children with gay couples. Catholic Charities made the difficult
decision to close down its adoption services, which had a devastating
impact on children in Boston. This was completely unnecessary. Other
adoption agencies could have provided the needed services to those gays
who sought to adopt. Boston could have chosen to respect the rights of
conscience of Catholic Charities, while also providing adoption
services to gays. It did not have to be a “zero sum game,” with a
winner and a loser. The price of Boston’s rigid adherence to political
correctness is that thousands of children who need to be placed in
adoptive homes will be delayed indefinitely, and will languish in
foster care. What a tragedy!
The experience of Catholic Charities in Boston is an ominous warning
about the risks faced by many religious organizations. It is important
to understand that the goal is to equate the religious moral position
regarding homosexuality as the equivalent of racism. This was evident
in the arguments presented to the California Supreme Court in the case.
The opening argument criticized the domestic partnership system as an
unacceptable “separate but equal” approach, akin to racially segregated
public schools that were the subject of the historic Brown v. Board of
Education decision in 1954. When Bob Jones University was accused of
racism for its policy against inter racial dating, it lost its tax
exempt status. There is little doubt that the tax exemption of churches
and religious institutions will eventually be challenged on grounds
that policies, practices and teachings regarding homosexuality violate
public policy, just as Bob Jones’ dating policy did. Some of us have
seen this coming ever since the Bob Jones case was decided in the early
1980s.
The hostility to individual conscience was evident in arguments
presented to the California Supreme Court earlier this week in a case
pitting the rights of a lesbian couple to receive artificial
insemination services from a medical clinic against the rights of
Christian doctors to refuse to provide services in violation of their
conscience. Lawyers representing the lesbian couple argued that there
simply is no religious defense to such discrimination. In other words,
if they can prove discrimination, there is no balancing of the rights
of conscience. The rights of conscience have no legal standing. The
L.A. Times headline indicated that the court seemed likely to rule
against the doctors. No court has yet considered the facts of this
case, or whether the lesbian couple could have obtained the services in
a timely manner without requiring these Christian doctors to violate
their beliefs. But no such “win win” compromise is desirable to those
advocating for “equality rights” of gays. Instead, equality must
completely trump liberty.
According to lawyers for the doctors with whom I have discussed this
case, the doctors informed their patients at the outset as to the
limitations of the services they were willing to provide. They also
informed the patients that should additional services be required, they
would refer them to an alternate provider, and even pay any added costs
incurred should the insurance not fully cover them. These were not
emergency services, and the doctors claim to have acted responsibly to
insure that their patients were able to obtain the services they
desired in a timely manner. But none of this is relevant to the Court,
or to those advocating for the patients. They want to destroy the
rights of conscience. They insist on a ruling that religion doesn’t
count at all, and that every business provider must serve gays,
regardless of their religious beliefs.
The same law at issue in this case, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is the
subject of a pending case against Lutheran High School, challenging the
expulsion of two lesbian students from a religious school. The trial
court held that the Unruh Act does not apply to private schools, but
the ruling has been appealed. You can readily see the problem should
the courts decide that Unruh should apply to private and religious
schools. Christian schools will lose the right to discipline students
for sexual misconduct with others of the same sex.
The absurdity of the “equality” argument comes into sharp focus in this
scenario. Consider that a Christian school could expel two heterosexual
students for sexual misconduct without exposing itself to legal
liability, but could not expel homosexual students for the same
offense. This is what it means for gays to become a protected class.
Instead of achieving equality, they achieve a superior status in
society. A religious school would be able to fire a teacher for garden
variety adultery, but it would be illegal to fire a gay teacher for the
same offense.
Barry Bussey, Director of Public Affairs & Religious Liberty for
the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada, has written most
insightfully about this conflict between “equality” and religious
freedom in the book: Politics and Prophecy.” The gay community has made
“equality” the primary value, and has elevated it above liberty in
general, and religious freedom in particular. The faith community has
rejected this extreme view of “equality,” but has been equally hostile
to the rights of gays. Bussey has thoughtfully analyzed the
“winner-take-all” attitude of both sides in the marriage debate, in
seeking to determine whether there was any hope of a middle ground,
where the rights of gays and churches could co-exist. His conclusion
was not optimistic.
Although we have long assumed that religious liberty enjoys a preferred
status as a fundamental constitutional right, this has not been true
either in California or the United States Supreme Court for nearly two
decades. The Supreme Court practically discarded the First Amendment’s
protection for the free exercise of religion as a “luxury that a well
ordered society can no longer afford” in an infamous 1990 decision,
Employment Division v. Smith. Although California has not explicitly
followed suit, the California Supreme Court has ruled against religious
liberty consistently, in a series of cases since 1995.
In 1995, the Court held that Evelyn Smith’s Presbyterian faith was not
a good enough reason to refuse to rent one of her four duplex
apartments to an unmarried [heterosexual] couple, despite the fact that
in the same city of Chico, the State University maintained hundreds of
units of housing exclusively for married couples. Such hostility to
religious freedom interests has been the consistent theme of court
rulings in California.
Californians will have the opportunity to reaffirm that marriage
consists of a man and a woman in November, when a constitutional
marriage amendment is expected to appear on the ballot. Although such a
constitutional amendment may resolve the immediate issue of marriage,
if successful, by reversing the court’s decision upholding gay
marriage, it will do nothing to change the legal status of
homosexuality as a fundamental right, given preferred status in
California over the right to practice one’s faith.
There is an ancient Chinese curse: “may you live in interesting times.”
It was considered a curse, because peace and prosperity were preferred
over instability and excitement. Hold on for the ride! There is likely
to be considerable turbulence ahead for religious liberty! Your support
of the North American Religious Liberty Association and our efforts to
preserve liberty of conscience is needed now more than ever! (back to top)
Home School Outlaws
by Nicholas Miller (reprinted from Religious Liberty blog dated 5/23/08: www.religiousliberty.info
On February 29th of this year more than 160,000 otherwise law-abiding
California families awoke to read the news that a California appeals
court had declared them outlaws. The crime?—home schooling their
children in violation of California compulsory school attendance laws.
And what about their parental and religious constitutional
rights?—dismissed by the court, largely on the strength of two
California state court decisions from about fifty years ago. The
decision immediately created a national uproar, as the well-organized
home-school advocacy community highlighted the case to its national
constituency. The hue and cry was so widespread that California
governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would push for legislation
protecting home schooling if the courts did not reverse themselves.
Shortly thereafter, the court withdrew its decision, and called for
re-argument of the case. A number of religious advocacy groups have
filed amicus briefs in the case, including one written by this author
with assistance from fellow NARLA blogger Alan Reinach on behalf of the
Church State Council. There, we have detailed the inspired counsel that
Adventists have on the importance of home-schooling for younger
children. We have also set out the protection that such religious
convictions have under both the California state and Federal
constitutions.
So what precipitated this home school crisis? And how might it turn
out? A family was brought before the juvenile dependency court for
allegations of child-abuse and neglect. The claims were not serious
enough to justify removing the children from the home, but called for
some outside monitoring. A lawyer for some of the children moved the
trial court to order the parents to discontinue home schooling and to
force the parents to send the children to a formal school setting. He
argued that schooling in a public setting would allow the children to
be monitored by outsiders. The parents objected, asserting among other
reasons, their religious rights as parents to direct the education of
their children. The trial judge upheld the parent’s constitutional
rights to educate their children at home. But on appeal, the appellate
court ruled that there was no constitutional right to home schooling,
and that California law required any potential home schooling parent to
be a fully accredited teacher.
If the applicable law is applied fairly, there should be no real doubt
as to the eventual result, at least as to the lawfulness of
home-schooling generally. Both the California and Federal Constitutions
protect the parent/child relationship as a fundamental right of the
highest order. Ironically, as we were drafting our brief, the
California Supreme Court ruled that gays have a constitutional right to
marriage. While we strongly disagree with that decision (to be the
subject of a future blog), at least part of the reasoning behind it was
sound, and we cited to it in our home-school brief. The Court wrote
that “the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized
family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children
within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the
fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the
California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both
the individual and society.” In Re Marriage Cases, JCCP No. 4365, slip
op. at 7 (CA May 15, 2004) (emphasis added).
If the right to raise children is a fundamental liberty interest, then
the state can only curtain that interest in a minimally intrusive way
to protect some other fundamental interest. While educating children is
very important, there are many more, far less intrusive ways of making
sure that happens properly short of an outright ban on home schooling.
Other steps that could be taken are requirement of standardized
testing, attendance reports, and basic curriculum requirements. These
could be implemented in sensitive ways to ensure both the state’s need
for educational success, and the parental and religious rights of home
schoolers.
Our arguments do not mean that everyone will always have the right to
home school. Even in this case, it is possible that specific,
documented threats to the children’s safety would justify the
requirement of placement in a formal school setting. No right is so
absolute as to require, justify or screen the endangerment or abuse of
children. But there needs to be particular and specific evidence of
such dangers shown on a case-by-case basis (as the appeals court in
Texas just reminded us in the FLDS custody case). The outright banning
of all home schooling is far too broad and intrusive a response.
Responsible parents are the best educators of their children, and the
state is generally a poor and distant second or third alternative.
There must be significant evidence on hand to reverse this natural
presumption. Arbitrarily turning all home-schooling parents into
outlaws just won’t do. (back to top)
Freedom Day and Secret Courts
On May 10, Pastor Ed Bryan and members of the North Coast Christian
Fellowship, celebrated Freedom Day. Pastor Norman Farley, a board
member of NARLA-West, who also works with Church State Council, and
Judge Victor Ramirez were the invited speakers for the occasion. Alison
Agins, also a board member of NARLA-West, was also present.
Pastor Farley discussed what the statement means that America was born
of freedom. He emphasized that freedom is a natural right, a gift of
God, and is inalienable, and not a right granted by the government.
This, he stated, is the basic ingredient of American freedom. He
discussed the futility of coercion in the setting of the Reformation
and current history. Finally he reminded everyone of the words of
Benjamin Franklin. “Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
That afternoon, members from the surrounding churches and
attorneys from the community began filling the pews to hear Judge
Ramirez present the topic “Secrecy and the Constitution.” Judge Ramirez
is retired from the Superior court of San Diego where he presided for
23 years. Among the many judicial awards he has been awarded he was the
recipient of the University of San Diego School of Law Most
Distinguished Alumni Jurist Award and selected to teach at Judicial
College.
Judge Ramirez gave an informed presentation on the current changes
which Habeas Corpus has undergone since 9-11. He emphasized the
changing role of the FISA Court since 9-11. He described in detail how
individual “rights” have been affected since the adoption of the
Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. He also discussed the unprecedented
degree of “secrecy” which now exists because of “wartime” powers
granted to the executive. Time was also spent in discussing the
development of secret courts.
Allen Marblestone, Attorney Emeritus and Judge Pro-Tem stated:
“I thought the Judge’s talk was one of the most enlightened I’ve heard
about “secret courts.” It was extremely clear and precise. The Judge
displayed a complete knowledge of the legislative acts which allows
them to operate their (secret) procedures. He delivered it in such a
manner that everyone clearly understood the dangers confronting our
freedom. He was very patient in answering every question posed.”
Attorney Rickard Borg wrote the following: “The program you and Judge
Ramirez presented in Carlsbad was outstanding. Every American should be
keenly interested in the issues you presented.”
Church members who routinely remain passive during sermons and lectures
left the church wide awake with a renewed awareness of what individual
citizens are facing since 9-11.
Stay tuned next month to find out what Judge Ramirez had to say in
detail regarding Homeland Security, Habeas Corpus, and the
Military Commission Act.
Left to Right as follows: Larry Hellman, Atty. Rick Borg, Norm Farley, Judge Victor Ramirez, Alison Agins, Pastor Ed Bryan
(Back to Top)
Liberty Cruise
The Celebrity cruise liner “Infinity” leaves from Fort Lauderdale,
Florida on Wednesday afternoon, December 3, for a tour of the Western
Caribbean, and returns Sunday morning, December 7th. Thursday and
Friday are your days to explore Key West, Florida and Cozumel, Mexico.
We will begin the Sabbath and our time worshipping together with an
inspirational Friday evening vespers talk by Dr. Bill Knott, editor of
the Adventist Review. Dr. Knott will be our Sabbath morning presenter
as well, and then Sabbath afternoon you will be blessed by a panel
discussion by the Liberty editorial team and the Southern Union
Religious Liberty department.
The prices begin at $429 per passenger including accommodation, food,
and a Religious Liberty event to remember! Prices vary slightly based
on deck/category level and occupancy, so please give our travel agents
a call at (301)977-4141 or e-mail travelfourless2002@yahoo.com for additional information. (back to top)
New Book Looks at Religious Freedom and More
Nicole Batten, May Recorder
Adventists have always walked a fine line between calling attention to
important societal issues of the day — such as temperance and poverty —
and avoiding any involvement in partisan politics. Following in that
tradition, nine highly qualified experts have joined together to share
their insights and provide clarity on some of today's most pertinent
church and state issues.
Politics and Prophecy,
a new book published by Pacific Press, tackles issues such as religious
freedom in the workplace and the marriage debate, and delves into the
role of religious freedom in prophecy.
"This book is based on the
conviction that there is more to modern cultural-war battles than can
be understood through mere political analysis or moral discourse, but
that a prophetic perspective is essential," says Alan Reinach,
contributor to and editor of Politics and Prophecy. "It is a
timely asset that will help Adventists and other Christians know how to
relate to many of today's public issues," says Dale Galusha, president
of Pacific Press.
Politics and Prophecy is available at any local Adventist Book Center, or by calling 800-765-6955, or online at www.AdventistBookCenter.com.
(back to top)
|
