Calendar
SAN JOSE, CA
San Jose Spanish SDA
281 N. 33rd St
Date: May 30
Time: 11:00 am
Speaker:
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Topic:
LOS ANGELES, CA
Central Spanish SDA
1366 S. Alvarado St
213-381-1905
Dates: July 3-4
Please call Manuel Arteaga Associate Pastor for Youth, for more information
213-381-1905
JASPER, OR
Laurelwood Academy
America at the Prophetic Crossroads
37466 Jasper Lowell Road
Jasper, OR 97438
Download Bulletin or
for more information:
Call: 360-857-7040 or
Freedom’s Ring
Radio Broadcast
Schedule
No Religious Freedom at Home?
Howie
Beigelman, Orthodox Union Deputy Director of Public Policy talks about
legislative efforts to solve the problem of condos and apartment
buildings outlawing religious displays such as a mezuzah, a Christmas
wreath, or other symbols of religious identity. Broadcast date:
May 2, 2009
Conscience Provisions Under Attack
Barrett
Duke, Vice President for Public Affairs, Southern Baptist Committee,
Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, erlc.com. , discusses
challenges in the workplace to the rights of conscience.
Broadcast date:
May 9, 2009
Christian Legal Society v. Kane
Tim
Tracey, attorney with the Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the
Christian Legal Society, discusses a series of decisions denying
Christian student groups the right to require voting members and
officers to be professing Christians.
Broacast date:
May 16, 2009
Report from Geneva Human Rights Commission
Barry
Bussey, Legislative Affairs Director for the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, discussing the current state of Resolutions on Religious
Defamation.
Broacast date:
May 23, 2009
Marriages as Illegal Bigotry?
Alan
Reinach discusses the current status of traditional religious beliefs
regarding marriage in California in the wake of a series of state cases
regarding religious liberty and gay rights.
Broacast date:
May 30, 2009
Rome as Global Peacemaker
Greg Hamilton, President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association, discusses this important topic. www.nrla.com.
Broadcast date:
June 6, 2009
|
 |
In This Issue... Volume 2, No. 3, May 2009
ACTION NEEDED!
Register Now for the North American Religious Liberty Association (NARLA) Capitol Hill Summit, June 17-20
The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists Legislative Affairs
office will conduct its annual Lobby Day program titled Capitol Hill
Summit on June 17-20, 2009. The program has been expanded from two to
four days to provide more time for unrushed training, to make
legislative visits, provide Sabbath fellowship, and to provide
opportunity for sightseeing in the nation’s capital.
While the Lobby Day is open to all, attendance at the Annual Religious
Liberty Banquet is limited to members of NARLA. Space is quite limited,
so register right away!
You can register or obtain more information at the NARLA website at the following link: www.religiousliberty.info.
Andrews University to Host Conference on Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church, October 15-17
A conference will be held at Andrews University that deals with issues
of marriage and sexual orientation in relation to Seventh-day Adventist
church teaching and public policy positions. The Church State Council,
a religious liberty ministry of the Pacific Union Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists, is proud to join with our colleagues throughout
the church in sponsoring this critically important
conference. Read More...
To register online, please visit: www.plusline.org/eventdetail.php
Prayer List
Each
month, we urge you to continue praying for those who have lost their
jobs due to faithfulness in observing the Sabbath, and for others
seeking to keep jobs, for those with active claims and cases in court,
and for others with religious liberty problems. Prayer changes things!
Please join us in making prayer an increasingly active and effective
part of this ministry.
- Sandra – to find work after being fired for refusing to work on Sabbath.
- Teresa – to find witnesses to support her case, and another job.
- Bruce – strength to endure ongoing harassment
- Anthony – for blessing in his work selling used cars
- Judy – success with her appeal
- Scott,
David and other postal service workers – for help in obtaining or
retaining Sabbath accommodations during a time of upheaval and
transition
- Esteban – guidance for the administrative judge deciding his case
- Saul – for help in finding work
- Ricardo – for blessing in starting his own business
- Dennis – for blessing on his case in Federal court
- Willie – for wisdom to guide the lawyers handling his case
- James – to find new work while his complaint is processed by the EEOC
- Richard – for his job to be restored and religious discrimination to be remedied in management
- Terrice – for physical healing of work-related injury and restoring of her work hours
For people to come forward and file charges against companies that
screen out job applicants who cannot work certain shifts for religious
reasons.
Please feel free to send in your own prayer needs to be added to the list!
NARLA-WEST NEWS
Sacramento Lobby Day and Banquet
On
April 20, 2009, the Church State Council executive offices with the
cooperation of NARLA-West board members and church members from
California, conducted for the first time a Lobby Day at the Sacramento
Capitol Building that was capped off with a religious liberty banquet
in the evening. Read More
TOP NEWS STORIES
The Pendulum Pauses: California Supreme Court Declines to Hear Lutheran High School Case
The gay rights community has been pressing the case of two female
students who were expelled from the California Lutheran High School for
their public expressions of romantic affection for one another. The
school insisted that it has the right to enforce standards of student
conduct rooted in its religious values.
Read More
Festival of Freedom in Dominican Republic
John Graz
Secretary General
International Religious Liberty Association
Dear Friends!
I have just returned from Santo Domingo, and I want to share some good
news with you. The First Inter-American IRLA Congress was a success. It
went from Tuesday to Thursday. Dr Hsu, Barry Bussey, and Lincoln Steed
were with us. Congratulations to Roberto Herrera.
On Sabbath the Dominican Union Mission organized the First
Inter-American Festival of Religious Freedom. It was fabulous. The
Palacio del Sportes was totally full, including the seats behind the
platform. More than 13,000 people attended. The program was so good and
well prepared that four hours seemed to be one. Congratulations to the
Union!
In June we will have several events in Sao Paulo and in Lima. On June
13 we will have our First World Festival! Please pray for our Peruvian
Unions and for Edson Rosa. We expect 45,000 – 50,000 attendees.
Seventh-day Adventist Appointed as Religious Liaison for Obama Administration
Adventist News Network
http://news.adventist.org/2009/04/adventist-appointed.html
US Commission on International Religious Freedom indentifies 13
countries on its “countries of particular concern” list
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/01/religious.freedom/index.html
back to top
FROM OUR INBOX
Almost every week we receive forwarding e-mails alerting us to issues
or legislative matters purported by some organization to have immediate
or far-reaching impact on civil and/or religious freedoms. The
positions taken in news articles or organizational alerts often times
are either exaggerated or completely misinterpret the intent and
language of a bill. Sometimes these forwarded e-mails are sent to let
us know what is going on “out there” and some are sent with a sincere
desire to know whether or not they should be concerned about the
content of the e-mail. Read More
Andrews University to Host Conference
on Marriage, Homosexuality and the
Church - Oct 15-17
On
October 15-17, 2009 a conference will be held at Andrews University
that deals with issues of marriage and sexual orientation in relation
to Seventh-day Adventist church teaching and public policy positions.
The conference is being sponsored and supported by a wide-range of
Church institutions, including Andrews University, the Seventh-day
Adventist Theological Seminary, the General Conference Biblical
Research Institute, the General Conference Public Affairs and Religious
Liberty Departments, the North American Division Ministerial and Family
Ministry Departments, Liberty magazine, and the Church State Council.
Conference Purposes -
To provide a scholarly examination of questions that have been raised
about the Church’s position on the Bible’s teaching on homosexual
practice, to explore the religious liberty and social welfare
implications of gay marriage, and to promote sound and sensitive
ministerial and counseling practices in dealing with issues of gender
orientation. The conference is also intended to produce scholarly
papers from a variety of disciplines for a book that can provide the
church at large with resources and information to deal with this
important topic.
Conference Structure
- The conference will take place at Andrews University, in Berrien
Springs, Michigan, over the course of three days—from Thursday evening
through Sabbath afternoon, October 15-17, 2009. The basic structure of
the conference will be that of a typical scholarly conference—with a
series of substantive presentations followed by general discussions.
Topics to be covered are the Biblical and theological issues regarding
homosexuality, the public policy and religious liberty issues in
relation to the church’s response to gay marriage, and psychological
and counseling aspects of dealing with gender orientation. The portions
of the conference on Friday evening and Sabbath morning held at the
Pioneer Memorial Church will be open without charge to the general
public.
Conference Presenters
- Main presenters include Dr. Stanton Jones, Provost and professor of
psychology at Wheaton College, Dr. Robert Gagnon, New Testament scholar
from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Dr. Richard Davidson and Dr. Roy
Gane, professors of Old Testament from Andrews University, Dr. Mark
Yarhouse, professor of psychology at Regent University, and Pastor
Dwight Nelson of Andrews University. There will be a number of other
presenters from the fields of theology, psychology, law and political
science.
Conference Registration – Register at plusline.org (look for the “Marriage, Homosexuality and the Church” conference) and the fees are:
$70 Early-bird now through August 4, 2009; $80 Regular through October 8, 2009
$38 Student now through October 8, 2009
$50 Thursday plus Reception & Friday Only
$45 Friday & Sabbath Only
$35 Spouse (will share conference papers with full-paying spouse)
For more information contact Fran at the Andrews University International Religious Liberty Institute at:
fran@andrews.edu or 269-471-3541.
back to top
Sacramento Lobby Day and Banquet
Matt McMearty
Associate Director, Church State Council
On April 20, 2009, the Church State Council executive officers with the
cooperation of NARLA-West board members and church members from
California, conducted for the first time a Lobby Day at the Sacramento
Capitol Building that was capped off with a religious liberty banquet
in the evening.
Just over thirty persons, including a contingent of Pacific Union
College students, were educated on conducting scheduled and unscheduled
legislative visits concerning three bills potentially impacting
individual religious liberties. Jeanice Warden-Washington, a staff
member for Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter (D-62, Rialto), provided
excellent insights on legislator/staff expectations about visits.
Every legislative office was provided with three one-page memos
describing the position of the Church State Council on AB 66 (support),
SB 115 (support), and SB 572 (Oppose, unless amended), and a one-page
memo entitled, Position
Statement on Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
(link to position statement).
AB 66 (link to position statement)
would allow private school principals or their assignees to issue work
permits for their students and would eliminate a number of difficulties
religious students have experienced in obtaining permits from public
school superintendents/principals.
SB 115 (link to position statement)
would permit nonelected state officials with conscientious objections
to swearing any form of oath to substitute an affirmation to support
the California and national constitutions in carrying out their
official duties; a privilege already enjoyed by elected officials.
SB 572 (link to position statement)
proposes the voluntary participation of public schools to commemorate
Harvey Milk Day on his life and political accomplishments on behalf of
homosexuals and their civil rights. Since local schools would have
discretion over the kinds of exercises selected to commemorate the day,
the Church State Council is requesting explicit language recommending
to local schools the importance of accommodating parents and students
with moral, philosophical, or religious reservations concerning the
nature of the exercises chosen. If amended, the Council would take no
position on the bill.
The lobby training and
religious liberty banquet took place at the Radisson Hotel in
Sacramento. The evening began with a reception followed by a sumptuous
banquet. Elder Ivan Williams, Assistant Chaplain of the California
Assembly and Ministerial Secretary of the Northern California
Conference, provided the keynote address of allegiance to God while
serving him with integrity in our allegiance to civil society. Other
guest speakers were Assemblyman Bill Emmerson (R-63, Redlands) who
shared thoughts concerning the challenges California faces in solving
its ongoing budget challenges and Barry Bussey, Executive Director of
NARLA who updated attendees on religious freedom issues addressed by
the United Nations and the United States Congress. Barry also presented
an award to Alan Reinach celebrating the tenth anniversary of Freedom’s
Ring Radiobroadcast and his efforts on behalf of religious freedom. The
highlight of the program was a performance of the Sacramento Adventist
Academy Bel Canto Choir under the direction of Dr. Beverly Wesner-Hoehn.
Participants in the Lobby Day voiced their appreciation for the
opportunity to make a modest coordinated lobbying effort as one part of
many approaches to communicating with legislators. The day’s events
gave the participants an opportunity to obtain a firsthand experience
with California legislators and their staff at the Capitol, which was
abuzz with numerous activities by lobbyists and concerned citizens on
other bills affecting them. “A real learning experience” that lit fires
under some who hope to attend this coming June’s annual Capitol Summit
in Washington, DC conducted by the North American Religious Liberty
Association.
back to top
The Pendulum Pauses: California Supreme Court Declines to Hear Lutheran High School Case
Alan J. Reinach, Esq.
Executive Director, Church State Council
The gay rights community has been pressing the case of two female
students who were expelled from the California Lutheran High School for
their public expressions of romantic affection for one another. The
school insisted that it has the right to enforce standards of student
conduct rooted in its religious values.
Two lower courts have held that the school is not a “public
accommodation,” and that it is not subject to laws requiring it to
respect non-discrimination rules with respect to student admissions and
discipline. The ruling has been consistent with prior cases.
Now the California Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in the
case, leaving the lower court rulings to stand. As we have observed in
previous articles, the pendulum is swinging in favor of gay rights and
away from religious freedom. But in this case, the pendulum clearly
took a pause.
Last year, the California Supreme Court signaled that gay rights will
trump religious freedom in two decisions; first, by equating
homosexuality with race, and second, by explicitly rejecting the notion
that religious freedom can even be balanced as a defense against a
claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Under this legal framework, had the Lutheran High School been found
subject to the non-discrimination laws, it would not have been able to
assert religious freedom as a valid defense for disciplining students
for violating school policies. Instead, it would have been forced to
change its policies. Ironically, the school could have forbidden
heterosexual dating among students, but not homosexual dating. This is
the absurdity of current “equality” principles.
Yes, the pendulum has paused. But for how long? Will the California
legislature take up legislation to “fix” this problem? I would be very
surprised if such a bill is NOT introduced early next year, or slipped
into an existing bill working its way toward passage this year.
Those who value the freedom and independence of private and religious
schools should remain vigilant about this issue. Join NARLA now. Be
informed, get involved!
back to top
From Our Inbox
Matt McMearty
Associate Director, Church State Council
Almost every week we receive forwarding e-mails alerting us to issues
or legislative matters purported by some organization to have immediate
or far-reaching impact on civil and/or religious freedoms. The
positions taken often times are either exaggerated or completely
misinterpret the intent and language of a bill. Sometimes these
forwarded e-mails are sent to let us know what is going on “out there”
and some are sent with a sincere desire to know whether or not they
should be concerned about the content of the e-mail. In this
issue, we will discuss two hotpoint items: Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2009 and US HR 1388 The GIVE Act of 2009
US HR 1913: Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009
An e-mail alert from the National Religious Broadcasters asserted on April 28 that:
In
its present form, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2009 (H.R. 1913) threatens Christian communicators, broadcasters,
Bible teachers and everyday citizens. Members of Congress must be told
that the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech are not being
effectively protected by this hate crimes legislation. A vote on this
dangerous bill is scheduled in the House tomorrow.
Throughout the whole e-mail not one part of the bill was quoted to show
what gave them a sense of alarm. This is a good example where a person
that does not know what the bill even says must rely on what someone
else says about it. This e-mail is carefully worded to provide the
reader on a “need-to-know” basis. They want the reader to contact their
legislator in the next 24 hours because the House of Representatives
was going to vote on it without any possibility of amendments. (It was
approved the next day.)
The key phraseology that unlocks the nature of their alarm is that freedom of religion and speech were not being “effectively
protected” by the bill. This implies the bill has language that aims to
protect those very things, but somehow the language is not sufficiently effective.
This observation leads to another point. To know whether the language
of the bill is effective or not, one must know what the language
actually is. This means you need to go to the horse’s mouth. What many
people do not know is that every bill considered by either the federal
or a state legislature is accessible online, even if the bill was
amended after it was introduced. Legislative bills are very public
matters and not secretive measures sneaking through the legislatures.
Do a keyword search on any leading internet search engine for the
legislature you want to find, such as, “California Legislature” or
“United States Congress.” Then look for the appropriate house
initiating and find a link for “legislation.” Type in the bill number,
such as HR 1913 or SB 222 or HB 333 or AB 11. Read the most recent version
of the bill. If you know what the bill actually says, even if you do
not understand all of its implications, you at least have a point of
reference to judge whether what someone says about it is barely
legitimate or not. Remember, different sides view the bill’s language
from different assumptions and perspectives.
In the case of the Hate Crimes bill in the U. S. House of Representatives
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111o96ViP ) the part of the bill that in principle addresses the freedoms of religion and speech states the following:
SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be
construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal
prohibition by, or any activities protected by the Constitution.
How effective is this broad language? The language of the bill uses two
different words to describe the motivation for committing a crime of
bodily harm on specified classes of people. The language uses the words
“prejudice” and “bias” (Read the bill to see it). Prejudice is stronger
than bias. The dictionary differentiates these synonyms by stating a
bias can be a favorable or unfavorable opinion while prejudice implies
a preformed judgment even more unreasoning than a bias and usually
implies an unfavorable opinion. If the evidence shows (including
someone’s speech) that a bias or prejudice was the motivating factor
for the perpetrator, then what that person
has said becomes an indication of their motivation, not what someone
else said to incite them to act on their bias or prejudice.
The problem opponents have concerning the intent of the bill is that it
makes a crime those actions that “cause” bodily harm to be committed
against the specified classes in addition to criminalizing persons
actually committing such acts of bodily harm with bias or prejudice.
Does the bill penalize those who only commit bodily harm and not those
who may incite them to do such even though they themselves do not
actually inflict bodily harm? Here are the relevant passages with those
parts left out detailing the punishments to be inflicted (words bolded
or italicized are mine):
Sec. 249. Hate Crime Acts
(a) In General-
(1) Offenses Involving Actual or Perceived Race, Color, Religion, or
National Origin- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law,
willfully causes
bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a
dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause
bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race,
color, religion, or national origin of any person . . . [then it states
the penalties]
(2)
Offenses Involving Actual or Perceived Religion, National Origin,
Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, or Disability-
(A)
IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any
circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily
injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a
dangerous [sic] weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts
to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or
perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender
identity, or disability of any person . . . . [then it state the
penalties and part (2)(B)]
(3)
Additional Federal Nexus for Offense- Whoever, in the special maritime
or jurisdiction of the United States, or in Indian country, engages in conduct described in paragraph (1) or in paragraph (2)(A) (without regard to whether that conduct occurred in
a circumstance described in paragraph (2)(B)) shall be subject to the
same penalties as those provided for offenses under those paragraphs.
The title of Section 249 says “Hate crimes acts” but the actual wording
under this section does not speak to mere physical actions, but to
“causes.” If the word “causes” implies those whose speech incited the
crime, then both the perpetrator of the crime and the inciter “caused”
the bodily harm, even if the inciter did not commit the bodily harm
themselves. For example, if someone were murdered or tortured, and the
perpetrator of the crime did it on the basis of the victim’s status
(race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) then the perpetrator
committed both a murder and a hate crime. Additionally, if there was a
link between the perpetrator’s crimes and someone else’s speech that
incited the perpetrator to commit both crimes, then the speech of the
inciter would constitute a hate crime, but not murder.
The legal standard of imminence or clear and present danger is crucial
to determining the link between one person’s speech and another
person’s crime of violence. If a pastor preaches on the subject of
homosexuality, he runs the risk of bordering on hate speech because he
has focused exclusively
on the sexual orientation and/or behavior of a class protected from
discrimination. This charge becomes more likely when a person listening
to his exclusive focus on homosexuality goes out and in a short time
breaks the law in causing bodily harm to a gay person. The linking of
the speech to the perpetrator’s state of mind and personal actions will
hinge on many factors, such as hinting at the need to punish gays,
calling for God’s judgment on them, encouraging vigilantism, the intent
of the speech giver, and the proximity in time between what was said
and what was done are a few possibilities.
Thus, there is the danger that certain types
of religious speech regarding people’s sexuality and/or sexual behavior
might be charged as a hate crime. This is not even close to saying
religious speech on sexual immorality that may include any of the
protected classes will also constitute hate speech. But all this will
depend on how the courts interpret the hates crimes legislation and how
it will apply free speech jurisprudence to what the hate crime
legislation encompasses.
The National Religious
Broadcasters have something to fear more than the pastor in a local
church. Broadcasters have a wider audience than most ministers and thus
a greater possibility that what they say over the airwaves may be
understood or misunderstood by a nut job to justify or encourage
venting their personal hatred toward gays and others.
Thus the question remains, how effectual is the language in Section 8
about construing the meaning of the act contrary to established
constitutional protections? I think the courts will eventually get it
right but not until after someone misapplies the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act to suppress religious free speech. The NRB is right to be alarmed
in the short run as the latter is concerned, but not necessarily in the
long run as the former is concerned. One important thing all ministers
should keep in mind: it would be wise not to address same-sex issues as
stand alone subjects on human sexuality.
US HR 1388 The GIVE Act of 2009
We have also received e-mails about the GIVE Act of 2009, which is the
acronym for the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education
Act, originally called the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. The
bill aims to revitalize the spirit of voluntary service, yet, oddly,
contains a section that would make such service required as part of a
college student’s educational experience if they were recipients of
federal educational loans. See
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/03/the-generations-invigorating-v.shtml for access to the bill’s text. The text of the bill is massive and makes for good bedtime reading.
The article that was e-mailed to us several times for comment (read article)
construes passages of the bill that forbids students from using the
Volunteerism program and federal funding for religious purposes as
anti-religious. The forbidding of funds for religious activities is a
longstanding church-state separation stance by the federal government.
The bill is not forbidding youth from exercising their personal
religious beliefs and practices, but from using the Volunteerism
program as a means of advancing their personal or a denomination’s
religion to proselytize others and to do so with government funding.
Taxing funding to advance religion is the foundation stone to uniting
church and state. The parts comparing the federal program to Hitler’s
youth program is nothing but fear-mongering rhetoric.
We do not know who published the article that was forwarded to us by
e-mail. We do recognize, however, that the article reflects a Religious
Right point of view that presumes hostility to the separation of church
and state. The author assumes that in order for the state not to be
hostile to religion, it must allow those receiving government funding
for governmental volunteerism programs the freedom to advance their
religion at taxpayer expense.
The GIVE Act of 2009 is not the boogeyman that some have made it out to
be, other than making student loan recipients choose to participate in
some form of volunteerism project or program. For many Adventist
students receiving government aid, this will not be a problem because
many already do volunteer work that is secular or religious in nature.
The former would qualify and the latter probably would not for
fulfilling the federal requirement. Where government money goes,
eventually it comes with strings attached. In this case, the string is
you will have to give in order to get.
back to top
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"What good deed can government do for religion? The best deed of
all: leave it free and unencumbered, burdened by neither enmity nor
amity." Edwin S. Gaustad
Faith of Our Fathers
(New York Harper and Row 1987)
"If
the establishment clause was based on any values at all in our history,
it was based on the value of neutrality, it was based on the value of
no prescribed religious faith, and it was based on the value of no
coercion."
Norman Redlich
Testimony for the American Jewis Congress
U.S. Senate Hearings, Committee on the Judiciary
September 16, 1982
|
