Calendar
ST HELENA, CA
St. Helena SDA
1777 Main St
Date: Mar 7
Time: 11:00am
Speaker: Tim Erich
Topic: "Scared to Death"
YOUNTVILLE, CA
Yountville Signs SDA
1920 Finnell Rd
Date: Mar 7
Time: 11:00am & 2:00pm
Speaker: Lincoln Steed
Topics: "The Money Pit" and "Defining Liberty"
CALISTOGA, CA
Calistoga SDA
2102 Grant St
Date: Mar 7
Time: 11:00am
Speaker: Matt McMearty
Topic: "Hold Back!
Hold Fast! Hold Firm! . . . Hold On!"
NAPA, CA
Napa Community SDA
1105 G Street
Date: Mar 7
Time: 10:00 am & 11:00am
Speaker:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Topics: "Sex, Sin, and Society: The Law of God and the Separation of Church and State" and
"Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land"
MODESTO, CA
Modesto Central SDA
1614 H Street
Date: Mar 21
Time: 11:00am
Speaker: Matt McMearty
MODESTO, CA
Modesto Westside SDA
2301 Woodland Ave
Date: Mar 21
Time: 11:00am
Speaker: Fabian Carballo
ANTELOPE, CA
Antelope Hills SDA
4219 Antelope Rd
Date: Mar 28
Time: 11:00am
Speakers: Matt McMearty
BURBANK, CA
Burbank Spanish SDA
14517 Osborne St
Date: Mar 28
Time: 11:00am
Speaker:
Alan J Reinach, Esq.
LaSelva Beach, CA
Monterey Bay Academy
783 San Andreas Rd
Dates: Apr 3-4
Times: 7:30pm & 11:00am
Speaker:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
SACRAMENTO, CA
Sacramento State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
"Religious Liberty
Lobby Day and Training Seminar"
Date: April 20th
Register by Clicking Here
Guest Speakers include:
- Ivan Williams, Associate Chaplain of California Assembly, and Ministerial Director of Northern California Conference;
- Barry Bussey, General Conference Associate Director of Public Affairs and Religious Liberty;
- Alan Reinach, Esq., President, Church State Council;
- Matthew McMearty, Vice President, Church State Council
Freedom’s Ring
Radio Broadcast
Schedule
Supreme Court Religious Monument Case
James Gibson,
Staff counsel of Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty. www.bjconline.org
Broadcast date:
March 7, 2009
E.harmony Accused of Discriminating Against Gays
Tim Smith, Esq.
Sacramento attorney
Broadcast date:
March 14, 2009
Inequality at Law School
Casey Mattox, Esq.
Litigation Counsel, Center for Law & Religious Freedom of the
Christian Legal Society
Broadcast date:
March 21, 2009
Sri Lanka Law Restricts Religious Conversion
Barry
Bussey, Legislative Affairs Director of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists, discusses a Sri Lankan effort to outlaw
attempts to proselytize, witness, evangelize or otherwise seek to make
religious converts.
Broadcast date:
March 28, 2009
Workplace Religious Freedom Act Update, Richard Foltin, Esq. Legislative Director and Counsel for the American Jewish Committee, in Washington, D.C.
www.ajc.org.
Broadcast date:
April 4, 2009
|
 |
In
This
Issue... Volume 2, No. 2, March 2009
ACTION NEEDED!
Turn in Your Liberty Lists!
Does anyone read Liberty magazine?
I was in Fresno for our annual rally there at Central Church, and drove
up to North Fork Saturday night to meet with a Jewish civil rights
lawyer, the oldest and best in the central valley. Over a delicious
bowl of stew, we talked over the prospects for a religious
discrimination case involving two teachers. He was very interested in
my background and ministry, and confessed that he had been receiving Liberty magazine for a very long time, and enjoyed it.
Now is the time to update your church’s list of those who receive Liberty magazine.
Only about ¼ of all churches in the Pacific Union send
in their lists. This means that many of you reading this do
not even have an active religious liberty leader in your church. Why
not ask your pastor if your church has a religious liberty leader, and
if not, volunteer? It is not too late to review last year’s list, and
update it.
I always recommend starting with
churches. It is easy to compile lists of area churches from the
telephone book. Zip codes can be added easily by using the post
office’s website, www.usps.gov,
where you can type in the address and find out the proper zip code.
Local media personalities are a good source, as are prominent lawyers,
college professors in subjects such as history, law and government.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of people in every community
who are ripe to receive Liberty magazine. Don’t assume that someone
else is minding the store. If you care about religious liberty, check
it out, and stand in the breach if the job is not getting done!
Updated lists are due to be turned in by the end of March, but we will
accept lists turned in at any time, it may just delay the start of the
subscriptions.
Register Now for the Sacramento Lobby Day!
Monday, April 20th is the day! Those who are concerned about protecting
and defending religious freedom will want to show up and meet with
legislators and their staff. Of course, not everyone will be able to
make the trek to our state capitol, so those who can should make the
effort! What will we do?
In the morning, we will have a briefing about the particular issues to
be discussed with legislators, as well as a basic orientation on how to
conduct a lobby visit. You will be divided into small groups, with a
designated leader. The afternoon will be devoted to the visits. Then,
we will regroup at the Radisson Hotel in the evening for a Religious
Liberty Banquet, where Pastor Ivan Williams, Associate Chaplain of the
California Assembly will be our keynote speaker. Pastor Williams is an
ordained Seventh-day Adventist minister who also serves as Ministerial
Director for the Northern California Conference.
Our experience with lobby days in Washington, D.C. suggests that those
who make the effort to attend have a great time, learn a lot, and
become enthusiastic supporters of religious liberty. This year, there
are some very serious challenges to the basic values of liberty of
conscience.
Registration is handled by PlusLine, online at www.plusline.org/events;
or by calling 1-800-SDA-PLUS (732-7587). There is a $25 fee for the
lobby day and banquet.
Back to Top
NEWS AND ANALYSIS
Freedom's Ring Celebrates Ten Years of Broadcasting
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
The
end of 2008 marked the completion of ten full years of religious
liberty radio broadcasting, as Freedom’s Ring turns 11 years old,
entering its adolescence. Selecting programs for the annual “Best of
Freedom’s Ring” CD was especially difficult, given the urgent topics
and articulate guests. The tenth year truly was the best ever.
Highlights included interviews with Franky Schaeffer, son of Francis
Schaeffer, one of the leading lights of what became the Religious
Right. Franky has become an articulate voice for recovering the
spiritual mission of the church from the clutches of its political
obsession. Ironically, the very next interview we recorded was with
John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute. In his younger
days, Whitehead served as Francis Schaeffer’s attorney. His 1982 book,
“The Second American Revolution” served as something of a “bible” of
the right–wing political awakening. Whitehead has plumbed the depths of
conservative activism in his career, representing Paula Jones in the
days of the Clinton sex scandals. Although still an ardent defender of
religious freedom today, Whitehead has become an equally ardent
advocate of recovering the gospel, and forsaking politics. The two
interviews were truly remarkable.
- Journalist
Max Blumenthal gave a sobering portrait of John Hagee’s organization,
Christians United for Israel, and its advocacy of pre-emptive military
action against Iran designed to precipitate the Battle of Armageddon.
- Nicholas
Miller, attorney and church history professor at Andrews University,
did a two part series connecting religious freedom with the doctrine of
Creation.
- University
of Chicago Law Professor, Richard Epstein, revisited the Hein decision
of the Supreme Court, and explained why it is so important that
citizens have “standing” to sue for violations of the Constitution,
including the Establishment Clause.
- Host,
Alan Reinach did a two part series on the ongoing conflicts between gay
rights and religious freedom, which threatens to be the main event in
religious liberty for years to come.
- Special
anniversary programs explored the Protestant foundations of the
separation of church and state, and the demise of the constitutional
principle of the free exercise of religion.
All
of these fifteen minute broadcasts, and more, can be heard anytime of
the day or night on our website, www.churchstate.org.
Back to Top
A Republican Form of Government
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Marriage was not the only thing on trial yesterday in the California
Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments about the
constitutionality of Proposition 8, itself a constitutional amendment
approved by the voters to define marriage as a man and a woman. Also on
trial was the fundamental constitutional guarantee of a republican form
of government. Our founding fathers inserted such a guarantee into the
constitution long before there was a party called “republican.” It
refers to a representative government where there is a separation of
powers among the various branches. In the words of Abraham Lincoln,
government is not the master but the servant since it is to be “of, by
and for the people.”
Even judges must adhere to constitutional limits on their authority,
and the people have the power to overrule the courts. At issue in the
Prop 8 case was the question of what limitations exist on the right of
the people to overturn the courts where fundamental rights are at
stake. How far can the people go in reversing a fundamental right? The
justices were reminded that previous ballot initiatives were upheld
that did reverse fundamental rights: for example, Proposition 187
eliminated the right to affirmative action based on race. Courts have
frequently extended as well as retracted various rights. Rights are not
something absolute, immutable, something that grow only in one
direction. Rights tend to both expand and contract. Supporters of
same-sex marriage expressed outrage that the people would be granted
the power to take away a fundamental right. But this argument begs the
question as to whether the court should have extended the right to
marry to gays in the first place. The court’s opinion approving
same-sex marriage ignored the question: what is marriage? The people
reasserted the authority to answer that question, and to define
marriage as it has been understood throughout history, and across
cultures, religions and civilizations.
Ultimately, in a contest between the people and the court, the question
comes down to one of authority. The people of California rejected the
exercise of judicial authority to extend the right to marry to same-sex
couples. Would the court overturn the will of the people? This is no
less a question than whether the principle of republican government
will be respected.
As Dean Kenneth W. Starr has told the court in his brilliantly written
briefs, “The constitution has now been amended by the sovereign people
who are its creators. That is the beginning and end of this case.… The
Attorney General is inviting this Court to declare a constitutional
revolution that would fundamentally alter the role of the judiciary,
putting judges in the role of supreme overseer of the people’s
constitution-making power, a result patently contrary to popular
sovereignty.”
Supporters of same-sex marriage expressed shock and dismay at the
position taken by Dean Starr, especially the report that he admittedly
agreed that the people could repeal the constitutional guarantee of
free speech. Think about it. Do the people ultimately determine the
text and content of both state and federal constitutions? Of course
they do. This does not deny the courts their proper rule to interpret
and apply the constitution, but in the end, the people have veto power
over the courts, not the other way around.
A wide range of media reports and interviews suggests that the court is
poised to uphold Proposition 8, while also validating the same-sex
marriages already performed under color of law. The court has 90 days
to issue its written decision. If it upholds Proposition 8, same-sex
marriage supporters have vowed to place another initiative on the
ballot in 2010 or 2012 in an effort to overturn it. Should the court
strike down Prop 8, Californians have little recourse. There is little
doubt that efforts will be made to recall Supreme Court justices, or
vote them out of office. There may even be subsequent constitutional
amendments introduced. The proposed Marriage Amendment to the Federal
Constitution may also gain new life.
Seventh-day Adventists expect continued erosion of the republican
principles of American government, as symbolized in Revelation 13 by
the beast with lamb-like horns that begins to speak as a dragon. The
two lamb-like horns are believed to represent the Protestant and
republican foundations of our nation. The “speaking as a dragon”
represents the ongoing repudiation of these principles, as the
foundations of freedom give way to increased tyranny. Now is not the
time for complacency, but for increased vigilance to the cause of
liberty, and for constant prayer for our nation, including the
California Supreme Court. Of course, renewing your NARLA membership
can’t hurt either!
Back to Top
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY BLOGS
Religious Monuments Revisted
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
(reprinted from Religious Liberty blog dated 3/3/09: http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog)
The
United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in a controversial
and confusing case of Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum. The Summum
Church wanted to display a monument containing the “seven aphorisms.”
The church teaches that these aphorisms were handed down by God to
Moses on the same tablets containing the Ten Commandments, but the
Israelites were not ready to receive them, so they were kept secret.
They insisted that because the city already displayed a Ten
Commandments monument in the park, they could not discriminate against
their proposed monument.
As Justice Scalia
correctly observed, although the case was decided under the Free Speech
clause of the First Amendment, it was under the shadow of the
Establishment Clause. All of the justices agreed that the monuments on
display in the park constituted government speech, and that the city
had the right to determine what monuments it wished to display. The
outcome was never really in doubt. You just had to know that the
Supreme Court would not compel a city to display a monument expressing
any group’s philosophical or religious views, without discretion. The
question was: how would the Court achieve this result without running
roughshod over the Establishment Clause requirement that government be
scrupulously neutral with respect to religion?
The answer: the Court failed again. To his credit, at least Scalia
seemed concerned about the issue. He alone declared that the rationale
for permitting the Ten Commandments monument in the first place was its
historical, rather than its religious significance. This is what is
known in the legal trade as a useful “fiction.” It is reminiscent of
Alice’s encounter in Wonderland, where the Mad Hatter makes words mean
what he wants them to mean. Other justices mostly ignored the
Establishment Clause issue.
To be sure, the Supreme Court was certainly correct in determining that
a public park is not a “public forum” for free speech purposes when it
comes to monuments. A park is a public forum for purposes of speeches,
rallies, and other “events,” but these are transitory activities.
In the end, the Court achieved the right result, and even continued to
advocate neutrality with respect to government endorsed religious
speech. But it did so through a legal fiction, a necessary one,
perhaps, that the Ten Commandments can convey important secular
messages, not just religious ones.
The practical result is that the Court has officially “desecrated” the
Ten Commandments. To desecrate means to take something sacred and make
it common, or secular. The Ten Commandments are the most sacred text
imaginable, to those who believe the Bible account, since they were
written by God directly on the tablets of stone.
Even this desecration is a practical necessity. After all, if the
Supreme Court were to hold that all Ten Commandments monuments
displayed in public parks constituted government preference for a
particular religious view in violation of the Establishment Clause,
that would practically result in the appearance of government hostility
to religion, and would both greatly offend the American people, as well
as undermining the Court’s own legitimacy.
So we are left with the practical results of civil religion: the
desecration of a sacred object in the name of doing the politically
correct thing: rejecting an unwelcome religious monument while keeping
the favored one. Whether or not America is truly a Christian nation, it
is certainly a nation that still favors the civic trappings of
Christianity.
Read more Religious Liberty Blogs below or visit www.religiousliberty.info
Rising and Falling - Together: The Economy and Sunday Laws
Our
nation is facing an economic crises unlike anything we have seen in
decades. In response, the government has already taken drastic measures
to get us back on course. We are certainly in uncharted waters and
Adventists are wondering how this financial collapse fits in with
end-time prophecies. Visit http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog to read Barry Bussey's thoughts on the economy and Sunday laws.
Faith-based Discrimination and Government Money: Abortion
President
Obama has wasted no time in fulfilling his promise of bringing change
to the White House. In the early stages of the Obama presidency, we can
already see significant departures from the policies and ideas of the
previous administration. But what do these changes mean to Adventists
and other people of faith? Old controversies regarding separation of
church and state and abortion have suddenly become new again. To see
Barry Bussey's take on these divisive issues, read his blog at http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog.
Back to Top
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"The
Church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the
state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the
guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool."
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
1963
"In
the law of the kingdom of God who rules the sinless inhabitants of
heaven are to be found the principles that should lie at the foundation
of the laws of earthly governments. The laws of these governments
should be in harmony with the law of Jehovah, the standard by which all
created beings are to be judged. No man should be forced to act in
harmony with human laws that are in direct opposition to the law that
God has given."
Ellen G. White
Letter 1878, 1785
back to top
|
