Calendar
LIBERTY CRUISE
December 3-7 2008
Call 301-977-4141 or
e-mail: travelfourless2002@yahoo.com
FRESNO, CA
Date: Dec 7
Church Officers Training and Religious Liberty Training
SIMI VALLEY, CA
Date: Dec 9
WestPoint of Evangelism
Speaker:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Topics: "Strategic Planning for the End of the World" and "The Dragon Roars: America Leads the World, But Where?"
SPARKS, NV
Date: Dec 27
Time: 11:00 am & 2:00 pm
Speaker:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
2009 CALENDER
FRESNO, CA
Religious Liberty Rally
Fresno Central Church
2980 E. Yale Ave
Fresno, CA
559-233-1171
Date: Feb 20-22
Speakers:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq. and
Nicholas P. Miller, Esq.
Freedom’s Ring
Radio Broadcast
Schedule
Religious Liberty and the Economy
Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty magazine,
discusses the need to find peace and calm in Christ during a time of
economic uncertainty, rather than looking to the state to provide
spiritual solutions
Broadcast date:
Nov 8, 2008
Washington Pharmacist Case
Kristen
Waggoner, Esq., an attorney for a pharmacy and two pharmacists, battles
a regulation that would require them to sell the “morning after pill,”
Plan B, against their religious conscience.
Broadcast date:
Nov 15, 2008
University of California Discriminates Against Christian Schools
Robert
Tyler, Esq., President of Advocates for Faith and Freedom, discusses
the Federal Court’s decision against Christian schools and their
students who have suffered discrimination and exclusion from U.C.
campuses because of the Christian worldview in high school courses.
Broadcast date:
Nov 22, 2008
The Separation of Church and State
Host,
Alan J. Reinach, Esq., explains what the historic Protestant view of
separation is and contrasts it with the secularist and fundamentalist
approaches. Broadcast date:
Nov 29, 2008
North Coast Women's Health Center v. Benitez
Jim
Sweeney, Esq., Counsel for the California Catholic Conference,
discusses a California Supreme Court decision holding that Christian
doctors cannot rely on a religious freedom defense to a claim they
discriminated against a lesbian patient seeking artificial insemination.
Broadcast date:
Dec 6, 2009
|
 |
Volume 1, No. 8, November 2008
In This Issue...
ACTION NEEDED!
Liberty Campaign Season
Liberty campaign season is fast approaching. In December, Liberty magazine
promotional materials will be mailed out to churches and Religious
Liberty leaders throughout the nation. Many churches have selected
their new slate of officers for the year, and Religious Liberty leaders
have either been reappointed or newly appointed. Now is the time to
roll up your sleeves and begin to plan for your year of ministry. With
our economy in a slump, it will take faith and diligence to retain our
historic levels of support for the Religious Liberty offering.
Many readers do not serve as Religious Liberty leaders in their
churches, but there is work for you to do, as well. We need your help
in building up the North American Religious Liberty Association
(NARLA). NARLA publishes a print newsletter several times a year.
Request a supply of these for your church from Debbie Knott, knottd@gc.adventist.org, and encourage your church members to join NARLA.
Prayer List
The secret to our success in helping church members with Sabbath
accommodation problems is prayer. We want to invite you to join us in
lifting up those whose cases are pending in court. Here in the five
states of the Pacific Union, the following individuals have cases
currently pending in either Federal or state court. Please pray for
their families as well as their attorneys:
- Willie Ellington - Price, UT
- Dennis Warner - Santa Rosa, CA
- Miguel Hernandez - Superior, AZ
- Luciano Cortez - Sacramento, CA
- Victor Woods - San Bernardino, CA
- Rocci Cantanzarite - Ione, CA
- James Lee -
- Anthony Okon -
- Rebecca (for relief from harrassment at work)
Others whose cases are not yet in court include: first names only, Rocci, Scott, James, and Anthony
NEWS AND ANALYSIS
Religious Liberty Post Prop 8
Those
who supported California’s Proposition 8 and Arizona’s Proposition 102
are gratified that their efforts to retain the traditional definition
of marriage as a man and a woman were approved by the voters. One of
the public arguments in support of these propositions was the impact
gay marriage would have on Religious Liberty. While opponents sought to
discredit these arguments, the legal scholars agree that same-sex
marriage poses a serious challenge to Religious Liberty, even as they
disagree about how those interests should be balanced. Read More
Why Proposition 8 - the Marriage Amendment - Is Not a Permanent Solution
Proposition
8 passed narrowly, nullifying the California Supreme Court’s judicial
creation of the right of same-sex couples to marry. Yet, this amendment
to the California Constitution provides only temporary comfort for
those who voted in favor traditional marriage. Read More
Gay Rights and Physician's Discretion
Gay Rights and Physicians’ Discretion was the title of an afternoon
panel discussion sponsored by the Loma Linda University School of
Religion on November 8th, organized and moderated by Prof. Jim Walters.
The subject was the critically important decision of the California
Supreme Court, in a case known as Benitez, in which Christian
physicians were denied the right to object on religious grounds to
providing artificial insemination to an unmarried lesbian patient. The
panel was to focus on physicians’ right to refuse treatment. Read More
A Japanese Man Petitions to Marry Comic Book Character
A Japanese man has enlisted hundreds of people in a campaign to allow
marriages between humans and cartoon characters, saying he feels more
at ease in the "two-dimensional world." Read Full AFP Article.
Russia Moves to Dissolve 56 Religious Organizations
On October 15, the Russian Ministry of Justice initiated steps toward
further restricting religious freedom in Russia in announcing that some
56 religious organizations were being dissolved. The University of
Mary-Hardin Baylor Center for Religious Liberty recently issued, by
e-mail, a press release discussing the various reactions and
interpretations of what such moves actually mean and their implications
for religious freedoms, apparently affecting several Adventist
organizations.
Read Full UMHB Press Release
NARLA-WEST NEWS
Plan Now for the April 2009 Sacramento State Capitol Lobby Day!
On Monday, April 20, 2009, the NARLA-West Board has scheduled a Lobby
Day at the Sacramento State Capitol. A lobby day is a chance to visit
with legislators and/or their staff. During these visits, we can
communicate our views about issues legislative issues of immediate
concern, especially those that affect the religious rights and
liberties of individuals and/or institutions of all
faiths. Read More
NARLA-West Chapters Now Forming
The
NARLA-West Board met this September and set a goal of launching
chapters throughout our five-state regions. We are gathering names of
those interested in forming local NARLA-West chapters. If you would
like to participate in a small group and become actively involved in a
Religious Liberty ministry in your community, please notify Pat Silvia
by e-mail at:
pat@churchstate.org or
call 805-413-7126. This is an exciting ground floor opportunity to help
build up our national organization!
Los Angeles Spanish NARLA-West Chapter Now Forming
Last June, Daniel Rodela, a member of the Carson Spanish Church,
organized and conducted the first ever Spanish Youth Religious Liberty
Rally. It was a four-day event featuring a variety of speakers and
topics.
Read More
Freedom Day and Big Ears
This is the third article in a series of a Seminar held by C. Norman
Farley and Judge Victor Ramirez. Judge Ramirez is retired from the
Superior Court of San Diego where he presided for 23 years. In the
seminar he discussed the effects which 9-11 had on Habeas Corpus and
the effects of Secrecy and Secret Courts in an open society operating
under Rule of Law.
Read More
Religious Liberty Post Prop 8
by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Vice President, Church State Council
Those
who supported California’s Proposition 8 and Arizona’s Proposition 102
are gratified that their efforts to retain the traditional definition
of marriage as a man and a woman were approved by the voters. One of
the public arguments in support of these propositions was the impact
gay marriage would have on Religious Liberty. While opponents sought to
discredit these arguments, the legal scholars agree that same-sex
marriage poses a serious challenge to Religious Liberty, even as they
disagree about how those interests should be balanced. For those
interested in a serious treatment of these issues, read: Same-Sex
Marriage and Religious Liberty, Emerging Conflicts, edited by Douglas
Laycock, Jr. Anthony Picarello, and Robin Fretwell Wilson.
Although Proposition 8 reversed the California Supreme Court’s ruling
legalizing same-sex marriage, the most dangerous part of that decision
remains good law. For the first time, the Court equated homosexuality
with race, and will now apply the same legal standards of protection to
both. This effectively treats religious beliefs regarding homosexuality
as illegal bigotry. We cannot predict where this will lead. However,
legislative proposals to conform existing statutes to this new legal
principle can be expected. Existing statutory exemptions for religion
may be revised to provide further protection for gays, undermining
existing respect for the autonomy of religious institutions, and the
rights of conscience of individual believers.
Many believe that the constitutional right to religious freedom should
be vigorously respected as against a statutory right to
non-discrimination. Yet, the California Supreme Court proved otherwise
in its decision in August, in North Coast Women’s Care Center v.
Benitez. There, the statutory right of a lesbian patient to
non-discrimination “trumped” the constitutional protections for
religious freedom and free speech. The current California Supreme Court
seems quite committed to rejecting religious freedom claims.
Facing organized hostility to religious freedom in both the courts and
legislature, those who value religious freedom need to organize and
prepare for its future defense. To this end, NARLA West has scheduled a
lobby day in April, and you should plan now to attend. Those who care
about religious freedom should also plan to participate in a local
chapter of NARLA, and take responsibility for educating your local
church and community about the importance of protecting the rights of
conscience for all peaceful people of faith.
back to top
Why Prop 8 - the Marriage Amendment - Is Not a Permanent Solution
by Matt McMearty
Vice President, Church State Council
Proposition 8 passed narrowly, nullifying the California Supreme
Court’s judicial creation of the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Yet, this amendment to the California Constitution provides only
temporary comfort for those who voted in favor traditional marriage.
Here’s why:
First, the margin of approval was too close for comfort: only 52% voted
in favor of Prop 8, whereas in 2000, 61% approved the same language in
Proposition 22. One of the reasons for the shrinking margin is because
Prop 8 was described as taking away people’s rights, something
Americans do not favor. With such a slim margin, gay marriage
supporters have already announced their intent to pursue a future
ballot initiative to revisit the issue. They believe that time and
demographics will shift the majority vote so that Prop 8 can be
repealed.
There is a more significant reason why Prop 8’s amending of the state
constitution is a poor permanent remedy to the marriage issue. The
problem is the legal process for amending the California constitution.
A comparison of the amendment processes for the federal and California
constitutions illustrates a fault line in our state constitution that
only becomes apparent in times of social stress and human passion. Just
as earthquakes take place along geological fault lines, so too can
constitutional weakness become a fault line permitting social stresses
to cause upheaval.
Both constitutions can be amended in one of two ways: either by direct
amendments or by constitutional conventions. But the procedures are
very different. To amend the U.S. Constitution, both houses of Congress
must first approve the amendment by a 2/3 majority. Then the amendment
is submitted to the state legislatures. Three-fourths of the state
legislatures must then approve the amendment. While a constitutional
convention is also possible, the procedure makes it very difficult and
unlikely.
In California, there are three ways to amend the state constitution.
First, 2/3 vote of both the Assembly and Senate can propose amendments
to be submitted to the voters in a general election. Such amendments
require only a simple majority vote. The second way to amend the state
constitution is by a constitutional convention, which is difficult and
unlikely. This brings us to the third method which was employed by
Proposition 8 – a ballot initiative placed directly before the voters,
and requiring only a simple majority vote.
Do you see the fault line for California? The federal constitution
requires what is referred to as “super-majorities”—two-thirds or
three-fourths. By design, it is difficult to amend the U.S.
Constitution. By contrast, we have witnessed how easy it is to amend
the California Constitution. True, it is relatively expensive to
conduct a signature campaign to secure enough support to place an
amendment on the ballot. But once that has been accomplished, a simple
majority can amend the state constitution, or, for that matter, can
undue such an amendment. If the whim of the majority changes, then the
constitution can be changed with relative ease by this third method.
Those who supported Proposition 8 take some comfort in this third
method of direct voter amendment of the Constitution, especially since
it is highly unlikely that the current legislature would have approved
such a marriage amendment. However, the ease of putting a
constitutional amendment on the ballot cuts both ways, and those who
support same-sex marriage have publicly declared their intent to put
the issue back on the ballot. Of course, it may not be necessary if
their legal challenges to Prop 8 succeed.
One of the proposals would prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in very broad terms as a constitutional right.
Currently, specific statutes ban discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation, but gay rights supporters are seeking to elevate such
statutory protections to the level of a constitutional right. If this
happens, it may throw into doubt existing statutory protections for the
religious freedom of both individuals and institutions. Both
traditional marriage and religious freedom hang on the vote of a simple
majority, a very insecure foundation, especially as compared to the
more stable and secure U.S. Constitution.
Although many Californians may be weary of the battle over marriage,
unfortunately, the battle is not over, nor is it likely to be
conclusively settled any time soon. Both sides are digging in their
heels for a lengthy fight, with legal battles in the courts, and
further ballot initiatives expected in the future. So long as there is
a significant cultural divide between those who hold to traditional
sexual morality, and the postmodern approval of sexual freedom, the
battle is likely to rage. Marriage has become a very passionate flash
point in the culture wars. Such passions tend to consume the landscape
of mutual understanding, respect, and civility to the point that the
“love of many will grow cold.”
back to top
Gay Rights and Physician's Discretion
by Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
President, Church State Council
Gay Rights and Physicians’ Discretion was the title of an afternoon
panel discussion sponsored by the Loma Linda University School of
Religion on November 8th, organized and moderated by Prof. Jim Walters.
The subject was the critically important decision of the California
Supreme Court, in a case known as Benitez, in which Christian
physicians were denied the right to object on religious grounds to
providing artificial insemination to an unmarried lesbian patient. The
panel was to focus on physicians’ right to refuse treatment.
I knew there would be some sharp differences in perspective before I
arrived, given the conflicting views that developed over same-sex
marriage. These differences were immediately present when I saw the
poster promoting the panel, and the reference to “physicians’
discretion.”
In my opening remarks, I pointed out that this was an unfortunate
description of the issue, since the battle was not to preserve
“discretion” but the rights of conscience. Next, I quoted my old friend
David Lawrence for the proposition that: “it doesn’t matter what you
believe so long as what you believe doesn’t matter.” In our new
postmodern world, individual beliefs of all kinds are tolerated until
they matter, until they conflict with the relativistic orthodoxy, and
then they are vigorously persecuted. The doctors could believe whatever
they wanted, but as soon as their beliefs mattered, they were ruled
irrelevant and subordinated to the prevailing orthodoxy that favors gay
rights.
I observed that the only sound basis for supporting the rights of
conscience was the Protestant Reformation, and the doctrines that
emerged placing their emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ. These Protestant doctrines put the primary emphasis on the
soul’s connection to Christ, and deprive both church and state of any
right or authority to interfere in that relationship. I further
observed that in modern America, there is no strong constituency
committed to the rights of conscience, and that the left had recently
shown itself hostile to freedom of conscience and religion.
The panel was ideologically balanced, with Doug Welebir and David
Larsen defending the Supreme Court’s decision, and Dr. Danielle Sawyer,
an OB/GYN at LLUMC, joining me in expressing concern over the
decision’s implications for further restricting the rights of doctors
to refuse treatment on religious grounds.
As an ethics professor, David Larsen insisted that Christian physicians
must leave their religious beliefs aside, and treat all patients
regardless of any ethical reservations they may have. Although he did
not discuss the logical implications of this position, I pointed out
that in the near future, doctors in California may well be faced with a
“right to die” measure similar to that enacted in Washington State, and
that physicians may have to decide whether to prescribe life-ending
medication. Dr. Sawyer objected to treating physicians like McDonald’s,
and urged the retention of the right to practice medicine according to
one’s ethical and religious beliefs.
David Larsen and Doug Welebir argued that doctors can no more refuse to
provide treatment to gays than to blacks or women or any other
protected class. Their argument failed to address the specifics of the
case. The doctors were willing to treat a lesbian patient for
infertility, up to the point where they would be required to actually
impregnate her. This, they could not conscientiously do.
Much of the panel was spent arguing over the legal significance of the
decision. Doug Welebir insisted it was a narrow decision, based on
specific facts, and did not pose a broader threat to religious freedom.
Yet, in his concluding remarks, he cited the 1940 case of Minersville
v. Gobitis, a Jehovah Witness flag salute case, for the proposition
that religious beliefs enjoy no protection against laws that apply
generally to everyone. This case was reversed in record time, when
three years later, in 1943, the Supreme Court handed down its decision
in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. I was stunned to hear
Welebir cite the same decision relied upon by Justice Scalia in his
infamous 1990 decision in the peyote case, Smith. Legal scholars had
roundly criticized Scalia for relying on overturned precedent, and for
the rule he adopted eviscerating the First Amendment’s respect for the
free exercise of religion. In fact, dozens of law professors petitioned
the court to reconsider its decision, an unprecedented move. The
Religious Liberty community has been battling to reverse this ruling
for nearly twenty years.
David Larsen and I found a slim basis for agreement in the legal
arguments: we both saw that the court had refused to balance the
doctors’ religious freedom rights against the statutory right of the
patient not to suffer discrimination. Larsen insisted that this was
proper, comparing this to the situation where doctors refused to treat
blacks. I argued that courts routinely engage in balancing of rights,
looking at the facts of the case to see how both interests can be
accommodated. Instead, the court here made a bold pronouncement that
the statutory rights of gays to be free of discrimination “trump” the
constitutional rights of religious freedom and free speech. This does
not provide a sound doctrinal basis for future protections of religious
freedom.
In the end, two very different pictures emerged regarding physician’s
rights to refer patients. Welebir and Larsen offered no support for the
right to refer or the legal respect for physicians’ conscience.
Professor Walters, although neutral as a moderator, clearly endorsed
these views, likening homosexuality to race, and asking why doctors
should be entitled to refuse to treat anyone because of their status or
characteristics. No one was arguing that doctors could simply refuse to
treat gays, because they are gay. The question is whether doctors can
be coerced into performing procedures and services when they have moral
and religious objections. Dr. Sawyer and I contended for the
importance of protecting physicians’ rights of conscience.
back to top
Plan Now for the April 2009 Lobby Day
by Matt McMearty
Vice President, Church State Council
On Monday, April 20, 2009, the NARLA-West Board has scheduled a Lobby
Day at the Sacramento State Capitol. A lobby day is a chance to visit
with legislators and/or their staff. During these visits, we can
communicate our views about issues legislative issues of immediate
concern, especially those that affect the religious rights and
liberties of individuals and/or institutions of all faiths.
The Lobby Day will begin with a morning training session to prepare
people for effective visits. We will divide into small groups and,
after lunch, each group will make several lobby visits. In the evening,
there will be a very special banquet you will not want to miss! Details
will follow in subsequent newsletters.
Many church members and pastors do not realize that there are so many
legislative issues that impact them directly. The Lobby Day will give
participants a much greater understanding of how to build bridges with
government officials, how to communicate about important issues; and
how to influence legislation. No doubt, many who come to Sacramento for
our Lobby Day will also want to come to Washington, D.C. when NARLA
conducts its annual lobby day on Capitol Hill. [Date still to be
decided.]
Mark your calendar for April 20, 2009 and plan to attend this event.
Also, keep in mind that we will be having a major Religious Liberty
rally in Sacramento on the previous Sabbath, April 18th, at Capitol
City Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Pre-registration is required: please e.mail or call Pat Silvia:
pat@churchstate.org; (916) 446-2552.
back to top
Los Angeles Spanish NARLA-West Chapter Now Forming
Last June, Daniel Rodela, a member of the Carson Spanish Church,
organized and conducted the first ever Spanish Youth Religious Liberty
Rally. It was a four-day event featuring a variety of speakers and
topics. Fabian Carballo, a high school teacher and member of the Board
of Directors of the West Coast Chapter of the North American Religious
Liberty Association (NARLA-West), spoke on Wednesday night, presenting
the basic principles of liberty of conscience in a clear and simple
manner On Thursday evening, lawyers Sam Hernandez and Alan Reinach
teamed up to present an Immigration Rights Seminar, one of four such
seminars conducted in the Pacific Union this year. Hernandez is an
immigration lawyer who answered many questions posed by church members
about their individual situations. The Sabbath guest speaker was
Lincoln Steed, Editor of Liberty magazine.
Following this event, Daniel Rodela began to lay plans to organize a
Spanish NARLA-West Chapter. Daniel was also elected to the NARLA-West
Board of Directors in September.
NARLA has roots going back to 1893, with the establishment of the
American Religious Liberty Association. It is a ministry of the Seventh
day Adventist Church.
All church members are encouraged to join NARLA-West and to receive our
monthly e-mail newsletters, read the blogs on our website, and
participate in supporting our legislative efforts. Every year
NARLA-West assists with asylum cases for those who are at risk of
religious persecution, if they returned to their home country.
NARLA-West is also working to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act,
to strengthen civil rights laws requiring employers to respect and
accommodate workers' religious beliefs and practices.
To build up an effective Los Angeles Spanish NARLA-West Chapter, we
need the support and cooperation of all the Spanish churches and
pastors. Churches are urged to appoint Religious Liberty leaders and to
encourage them to participate in the Chapter. Working together,
Religious Liberty leaders can coordinate together an effective
Religious Liberty ministry. The recent election highlighted the growing
importance of the Latino and Black vote. Proposition 8 would have
failed without support from Black and Latino voters.
Religious Liberty ministry can be an important evangelistic outreach to
the community as we take a leadership role in educating the community
about liberty of conscience and the character of a loving God who gives
us the gift of freedom.
back to top
Freedom Day and Big Ears
by Dr. C. Norman Farley, NARLA-West Board Member
This
is the third article in a series of a Seminar held by C. Norman Farley
and Judge Victor Ramirez. Judge Ramirez is retired from the Superior
Court of San Diego where he presided for 23 years. In the seminar he
discussed the effects which 9-11 had on Habeas Corpus and the effects
of Secrecy and Secret Courts in an open society operating under Rule of
Law.
He alluded to the role technology plays in
contemporary society which he jokingly referred to as “Big Ears.” Since
no transcriptions or recordings were made of the event, the opinions
expressed in this article represent the continue research of the author
based on Judge Ramirez’s remark.
In tackling a subject as broad as technology and its use in the public
sector, it is important to consider the eyes through which we view the
world. Author Tom Friedman makes the observation that there is a vast
distinction between skepticism and cynicism. “A skeptic says ‘I don’t
know, I’m going to find out – a cynic says I already know, I don’t need
to find out.’”1
Some months ago I was contacted by a gentleman who considered himself
somewhat of a resident expert in history and technology. He was deeply
concerned about Freedom of Conscience and Privacy Rights issues. His
question to me was very simple – what mountain did I think would be the
best mountain to hide in? It was apparent that he believed Osama bin
Laden had been very successful – and he wanted similar success.
I had different perceptions. Bin Laden lives in a tribal society; we
live in an open society. He may also have had in mind such groups as
the Albigensians and Waldensians. So what the gentleman wanted to know
from me was “can I hide as well as bin Laden in this age of super
technology?”
The New Version of “Big Ears”
There is an improved, sophisticated and silent version of “Big Ears”
which exists today. In the days of “Old Big Ears” you knew where the
boundaries were. Nearly 40 years ago I visited East Germany. At the
border, the license plates on the car I was driving were changed to
designate me as a foreigner/visitor. My hotel was picked at the border
and paid for and I was given a specific time to arrive and hand over my
passport to be stamped to demonstrate that I was on time. My room
telephone was tapped and there was electronic monitoring of the room.
There was no question about how to behave – but the new “Big Ears” if
different. You now need permission to travel. There is a new high tech
replacement called “Advanced Passenger Information System” (ALPS).
Everyone must now obtain permission to travel on any airline or ship or
you won’t get a boarding pass.
This whole process for both domestic and international travel occurs in
secrecy. If you are denied permission, you may only appeal to the TSA.
The new “Big Ears” is totally unseen and subtle. In current society,
you could never tell if your phone or internet was monitored or if you
were on a watch list. In fact, Americans like to be monitored. We live
in the age of the video cam, YouTube; and MySpace is a smashing hit for
teenagers.
From the military point of view: Heavy tanks no longer rumble through
the streets of Iraq. Because of advances in technology, they receive
information from satellites which visit designated spots on earth
numerous times daily taking photographs of objects as small as 16
inches. They are preceded by unmanned aircraft armed with cameras and
missiles seeking terrorists who plant roadside bombs.
Bin Laden may be still alive in his tribal cave in the north of
Pakistan but many of his lieutenants who ventured out are smoldering
cadavers due to unnamed aircraft with missiles manned from 1,000 miles
away.
Technology and You
You can't even hide from your car. Your car may contain a black box
which records RPM and temperature which allows the dealer to know how
fast you were traveling and your engine conditions. Your cell phone
registers your whereabouts and is completely traceable; -- you can't
hide from your cell phone. You can't hide from the stop signal which
has a camera at the top which records every vehicle and its license
plate number that passes by. Your passport contains biometric
information. None of which you may be aware of. The next time you go
through the airport terminal and hand the attendant your passport,
notice that he verifies it with an ultraviolet light. Fake passports
have been eliminated. Your driver's license also contains biometric
information, medical information, and soon other information will be
added. It is almost forgery proof. Almost every time you use a credit
card, a list is compiled of your shopping habits and sold. We live in a
world of super technology, and if you wish to live like a normal person
-- you will not be able to hide. Many very wealthy people hid their
money in a Lichtenstein bank. In violation of Lichtenstein and
International Law, the Federal Republic Bank of Germany paid 7.3
million to Heinrich Keiber to hand over a five year old CD-ROM which
contained the names of 1,400 alleged tax abusers. Within hours, the IRS
and seven other countries announced they were investigating their
citizens for tax evasion. Those who failed to report funds over $10,000
are guilty of tax evasion and subject to loss of all funds and prison.
Linda Stiff of the IRS announced that "it should be clear there is no
safe hiding place for the proceeds of tax avoidance and evasion."2
At the end of this article we will consider the latest advances in
technology created by Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)
which will both astound and amaze you.
Philosophical Considerations
America considers itself an empire. Students of history all observed
that empires come and go. Those who lived in the Roman Empire believed
it to be invulnerable. Eusebius, the biographer of Constantine hailed
him as the 13th apostle. Augustine, however, realized that the utopian
hopes of Eusebius would not materialize. Renegade tribes, such as
terrorists today, began to ravage Rome. Aleric, the Visigoth sacked
Rome, burned temples, raped women, and the populace had to flee for
their lives… It was Augustine who consoled the believers that “The City
of God” in its pilgrimage on planet Earth was not exempt from: "goading
fears, tormenting sorrows, disquieting labors and dangerous temptations”3
Because of the attacks on Rome, Augustine composed his “The City of
God" to counter what the populace believed to be the underlying cause
of Rome's fall – the gods’ punishment of the ascendant Christians.
However, the fall of Rome continued. Aleric was followed by Genseric,
the Vandal in 455, who plundered Rome even more than Aleric. Finally,
in 476, the barbarian warlord Odovacer deposed Romulus Augustulus, and
secular Rome joined the company of Nineveh and Babylon and was
succeeded by the Holy Roman Empire.
Augustine, however, comprehended the meaning of history. He rejected
the cyclical view of history which advocated history had no beginning
and no end. He rejected the apocalyptic theory, which applied the
angel’s predictions of Revelation 14: 8 "Babylon is fallen…" to Rome --
He stated Rome still stood, despite Aleric. He also rejected the view
proposed by Eusebius that since Rome became Christian "no barbaric
enemy shatters my walls with a javelin and no man with strange weapons,
attire and hair dress, wanders around the city he has conquered and
carries off my young men into transalpine prisons."4
Instead, Augustine saw rather clearly that the "City of God" must not
be closely aligned with any earthly city, including Rome, because "The
Heavenly City outshines Rome, beyond comparison."5
He wrote this about the Heavenly City: "There, instead of victory, is
truth; instead of high rank, holiness; instead of peace, felicity;
instead of life, eternity."6
Augustine teaches us that Christians are to inhabit time -- but belong
to eternity and that we must never equate political entities with the
Kingdom of God.
Christians have two citizenships.
St. Paul states that his citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20).
Nevertheless, he appealed to Rome when his life was in jeopardy. We
learn from Augustine that we live as "resident aliens" on a planet of
disconnectivity and moral interpitude. He wants us to avoid two common
pitfalls existent in his world and in ours. One is the lure of
utopianism, the belief that we can produce a society that will produce
the Kingdom of God on earth. He also wants us to also avoid cynicism.
Cynicism emerges as we view what appear to be hopeless circumstances
presented by life, crime, terrorism, and yes, the invasion of
technology. When we view these issues the tendency is to withdraw into
our self contained religious or political circle or withdraw to the
mountains. One is a "pious holy huddle" and the other "Escape by Cave."
How to Cope with the Issues
C. S. Lewis, in his sermon October 22, 1939, states a sublime truth
about how Christians are to deal with life's most difficult issues.
"Life is short. The world is fragile. All of us are vulnerable, but we
are here because this is our calling. Our lives are rooted not only in
time, but also in eternity, and the life of learning, humbly offered to
God, is its own reward… which we are called to display even now amidst
the brokenness all about us."7
Brokenness is not Healed by Technology
We do live in a world of brokenness and both scientists and politicians
are attempting to fix some of the brokenness by the use of technology,
which has bordered on and violated privacy rights (FISA rights). These
highly sophisticated technological means lead us to realize that in
Western society there is no place to hide and few ways exist to remain
anonymous. In short, your chances of surviving in a cave like Bin Laden
are practically nil because we live in an open society, not in a
society of clans and tribes.
The Movement to Authority not Democracy
“In a survey of 24 countries by Pew Research Center, the nation that
emerged as far and away first on earth in the satisfaction of its
people was China. No other nation even came close... ‘Eighty-six
percent of Chinese people surveyed said they were content with the
Country’s direction, up from 48% in 2002…’ said the Times.”8
Consider that China punishes the most dissident and treats Tibetans
with brutality. Another surprise is that "Russians were the third most
satisfied people with their country's direction."9
It is not surprising to discover that we live in a nation which speaks
loudly about democracy but actually live in a nation where the balance
of power has shifted toward a “unitary executive.” Justice Alito holds
“that a President should control all regulatory authority, define the
limits of law via "signing statements" and -- at his own discretion --
override treaties, the will of Congress and even the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution."10
Executive dominance is based on the vesting clause of Article 2 of the
Constitution. Following 9-11, the executive branch reasoned that in a
time of war, the President should be authorized to spy on citizens
without warrant, and revoke critical aspects of "due process" --
fortunately, due process has been upheld by the Hamden v Rumsfield and
Boumedine v Bush decisions. However, with one more unitary justice like
Alito, the establishment of a superior executive branch would have been
upheld and due process placed in long term jeopardy. Unquestionably,
the war on terrorism has moved American society toward a “unitary
executive” (executive authoritarianism) not democratic government,
which is a government by "we the people."
DARPA Inventions
Are you thinking of hiding in a cave from Big Ears? Below is a list of
DARPA’s newest inventions in sophisticated technologies for you to
consider the government may be capable of doing before running for a
secret hiding place:
- Brainwave binoculars-- will pick out things you looked at but didn't see11
- Morphing robots --robots capable of squeezing through small openings and returning to their original size12
- World’s smallest UAV, weighs 10 grams and flaps like a bird. This is a nano air vehicle that has wings instead of a propeller13
- Spy
plane that stays aloft for five years. This is an unmanned plane which
has pseudo-satellite capabilities in an aircraft package14
- DARPA’s
networked swarm spacecrafts. Multiple, networked spacecraft swarms that
are intelligent enough to perform a single coordinated task together,
like analyzing the crops or deciding to destroy humanity15
- Plasma
thruster powered, cigarette sized, unmanned aerial vehicles. Yes,
plasma powered thrusters cigarette sized unmanned aircraft – DARPA is
working with Oklahoma State University to make this a reality16
- DARPA
is inventing combat zones that see (CTS). “The job of this system is to
track ‘everything that moves’ in a city by linking up a massive network
of surveillance cameras to a centralized computer system, artificial
intelligence will then track all movements throughout the city -- the
entire population can be under 24 hour surveillance. It is intended for
use in combat zones to deter enemy attacks on American troops and to
identify and track enemy combatants” but it can also be used for
population information.17
The Key to All the Changes
All the changes occurring in our democracy owe their genesis to "The
preemption of risk." Rather than wait for terrorism to strike our
nation, we have settled on the policy of preempting and disturbing
terrorism. Many Americans believe that this justifies surveillance and
up to 60% are willing to jettison their "rights" for security. It is
true that all these surveillance capabilities could be turned around on
American citizens. We must carefully consider the difference between
skeptics and critics. I, for one, hope that if this great nation ever
crosses the line, and that our system of checks and balances will
continue to operate. We owe a great deal of gratitude to Justice
Kennedy who stood firm for the Bill of Rights in the Boumedine v Bush
case and preserved due process.
All these issues invite us to call to mind that we are not only
citizens of this world but also of the kingdom of God. It is our
privilege to be good citizens, but not unaware citizens.
________________________________________________________
- Cannon,
Carl M. “Q&A with Tom Friedman” from Reader’s Digest – August 2008
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/tom-friedman-on-globalism-climate-change/article89802.html
- Bauman,
Robert. “The Mouse That Roared: The Real Truth Behind the Liechtenstein
Scandal” The Sovereign Individual, Vol. 11, No. 4
- George,
Timothy. “Love Amidst the Brokenness" Christian history and biography
http://www.christianitytoday.com/CH/2007/issue 94/1.6.HTML
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Buckhannon,
Patrick J. "Democracy, a Flickering Star?"
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27958&keywords=Domocracy+a+Flickering+Star
- Ibid.
- Perry, Robert. “Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court? http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/85432
- http://gizmodo.com/5018656/brainwave-binoculars-will-pick-out-the-things-you-looked-at-but-didnt-see
- http://gizmodo.com/5017322/roomba-maker-to-develop-darpas-chembot-morphing-robots
- http://gizmodo.com/394155/worlds-smallest-uav-weighs-10-grams-flaps-like-a-bird
- http://gizmodo.com/363870/darpa-close-to-awarding-contract-for-spy-plane-that-stays-aloft-for-5-years
- http://gizmodo.com/363617/boeing-to-design-new-darpas-networked-swarm-spacecrafts
- http://gizmodo.com/tag/darpa/who is who
- Shactman, Noah. “Darpa’s Simple Plan to Track Your Every Move.” http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/000489.html
(back to top)
QUOTABLE QUOTES
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is
not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive
to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who
spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least
he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with
those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919), 26th US President (1901-09)
back to top
|
