Tag Archives: Religious Freedom

Anti-Muslim Hatred Post-election

Posted on by

The Virginia Legislature that approved “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom” (1786)
“meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”
– Thomas Jefferson

Sadly, several Islamic Centers in California, including one in Long Beach where I live, have received anonymous hate mail in recent days.

Written by a person or persons who claim to be “Americans for a Better Way,” the letter is addressed to Muslims as “the children of Satan.” It calls them “vile and filthy people” whose mothers are whores and fathers are dogs. It asserts a horrible, twisted patriotism that all Americans of good will must reject.

Those who write such hatred care nothing for the Bible or American ideals.

My Website’s Home Page speaks of “How We See God’s Kingdom Today” and has this great quotation:

“The Kingdom of God is no longer identified with any geopolitical kingdom on earth. It is no longer the era of driving the nations out of God’s holy land but of living side by side with unbelievers in charity. It is the hour of grace, not judgment.”
– Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (2012)

We must live by these words and let the Christmas message point us to the reconciling work of Jesus. He will sort out everything justly on The Last Day. Meanwhile we commit ourselves to living at peace with one another as best we can, not taking revenge, loving our enemies, and overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:17-21).

Donald P. Shoemaker

County Clerk in KY and Same-sex Marriage Licenses

Posted on by

What I’m writing today (Sept. 2) reflects one day of pondering and the situation as I understand it. More pondering or more facts could revise my thoughts.

I’m heavily influenced by Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “No provision in our constitution ought to be dearer to man, than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

Government at all levels should strive to accommodate conscience rights as much as possible while still furthering its legitimate purposes.  For example, providing for the national defense is of the highest constitutional order, but conscientious objectors are exempt from service even though that means others many have to serve and put their lives at risk in the stead of the CO’s.  Arguing from the greater to the lesser, this same protection should apply to much more ordinary matters.

“Reasonable accommodation” of religious beliefs in workplace situations is a well-established principle. It is not an absolute, but it is strong.

Only extremists would argue that government should always compel, or that conscience must always prevail.  But I’ll push the meter as much as can justly be done in the direction of freedom of conscience, no matter what the issue.

I don’t know the Kentucky situation well.  Is this one county clerk the only one in the region who can say yes or no?  Are there alternatives, or are the applicants just trying to have a crusade against this one person?  Areas like LA, by contrast, would have many other clerks available, I’m sure.  This is from the Washington Post (Monday, Aug. 31):

“In her defense, her lawyers described Davis in a court filing as ‘a professing Apostolic Christian who attends church worship service multiple times per week, attends weekly Bible study, and leads a weekly Bible study with women at a local jail.’ It says she fasted and prayed for weeks before deciding that she would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

“Her lawyers say there are more than 130 locations around the state where same-sex couples can get licenses, including seven counties neighboring Rowan. They also argue that other steps could be taken to accommodate Davis’s religious beliefs.

“For example, a clerk from a neighboring county could be deputized to issue licenses in Rowan County. The state could remove all references to a clerk’s name on marriage licenses. Or lawmakers could overhaul the way Kentucky licenses marriages.”

In this case, the particular clerk has been able to serve her task without conscience issues until same-sex marriage became a protected right.  So this is a new feature to her role, and I can understand her angst and conflicted conscience.  Imagine a doctor or nurse in the ob-gyn specialty who is dedicated to saving nascent human life and who believes abortion is murder but then is pressured by a hospital to participate in abortion.  Mostly their consciences are protected, but there have been many challenges.  Even clergy, now conscience-protected, have reason for concern.  According to a Barna poll in July, “There is a substantial minority among Americans under 40 (26%) who believe the law should compel religious institutions and clergy members to perform same-sex weddings.”

When same-sex marriage was legalized in California in 2008, the Long Beach Press-Telegram editorialized with this assurance: “Conservative religionists have nothing to fear. Their religious practices and their personal definition of marriage are intact.”  The ink wasn’t even dry on that editorial when Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo demanded that the county registrar not allow employees who are uncomfortable with gay marriages to excuse themselves from officiating at such ceremonies.

The Kentucky clerk has two primary options—resign or fight on.  Both have weighty implications for her and her family. I’ve counseled many an individual over workplace conflicts involving conscience.  Each has to be individually considered.  What is being ordered or forbidden?  Is this a core issue or a peripheral one?  What are the options and recourses, both legal and non-legal?  Is the issue bigger than one individual, to where staying on is needed to fight a larger cause?  Are there alternatives that might achieve a “win/win” (an important question and an appropriate quest in a diverse society—the Washington Post quote above suggests there are)?  Usually I’d recommend resignation, but by no means always.  If this clerk stands fast, she must bear the consequences, though I expect she would receive a lot of support.

Now, here’s a situation that is comparable, I think, but more troubling because of the high government position involved. The California Attorney General takes an oath of office that says (emphases mine):

“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

Kamala Harris took that oath but then refused to “defend…the Constitution of the State of California” as reported:

SAN FRANCISCO (March 26, 2013) — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued the following statement on today’s Proposition 8 arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court:

“I declined to defend Proposition 8 because it violates the Constitution. The Supreme Court has described marriage as a fundamental right 14 times since 1888. The time has come for this right to be afforded to every citizen.”

Now, she may be right about what the court says about marriage and the Constitution—five justices seem to agree. But her job isn’t to make that judgment but to defend a provision of the California Constitution in court.  It is a simple syllogism:

  1. Major Premise: The A/G must defend the CA Constitution
  2. Minor Premise: Proposition 8 is part of the CA Constitution
  3. Conclusion: Therefore the A/G must defend Proposition 8

She was reaching for her conclusion before there was one. In citing Supreme Court decisions, she should have looked back to 1878 (Reynolds), when the court ruled against the Mormons and said bigamy was not a right. Following her refusal to defend the state constitution, the court found that the proponents of Prop. 8 lacked standing before the court.

I can be neutral on both cases, but still believe that both the Attorney General and the County Clerk in KY are arguing conscience above law.

From a biblical standpoint, the argued position is that the laws of the state must be honored and obeyed but in a time of conflict the Law of God supersedes the law of the state (Acts 4:19). This principle is exemplified often in the Bible, such as when an order forbidding certain prayers was made during the Persian rule and Daniel, a government official, violated it (Daniel 6:6-10). As a Christian, my confession, “Jesus Christ is Lord!” is not subject to compartmentalization and cannot be confined to some sacred space surrounded by stained glass windows.

If I had to advise at this moment, I’m not sure what I would say though I might lean toward advising resignation. Frankly, I predict she will continue to lose any legal action she takes. However, if she and her counsel see the presence of larger issues, I’d allow that she should remain and take the consequences. I’m disappointed that efforts at accommodation are not going forward because it appears that other options do exist, and accommodation is consistent with a free society. Sadly and with regret, I find that in matters like this, many activists are practicing a “take no prisoners” modus operandi.

Donald Shoemaker

September 2, 2015

King Ahab and Naboth–A Bad King, A Bold Preacher, and a Prime Piece of Property

Posted on by

“A Bad King,
A Bold Preacher and
A Prime Piece of Property”

By Donald Shoemaker

[NOTE: This biblical story that I tell has relevance anytime evil attempts to trample good, oppression suppresses helpless victims, or the power of the government is used to force people of religious conviction to violate their consciences. I think of it when questionable instances of “eminent domain” occur. The story is from the Old Testament—1 Kings 21.]

Please listen to my August 23, 2015 sermon on this topic:
http://www.gracesealbeach.org/media.php?pageID=28

Once upon a time, far away in the little kingdom of “Israel,” there lived a wicked king named Ahab. His wife was Queen Jezebel. She was even more wicked than he was!

One day the wicked king looked out his palace window and saw a piece of property that belonged to a simple, good working-class man named Naboth. Ahab thought to himself, “I’d like to have that property! I’d make better use of it than Naboth ever would.” Since Ahab was the king, anything he took for himself would be for “public use” * of course.

So one day he asked Naboth if he would sell the property. “I’ll even pay you the full market price,” the king said. But Naboth said no. Why should he give up this land, which was his family land for generations?

Ahab was very, very sad—so sad that he pouted. When the wicked queen saw him pouting she really let loose with her tongue at him, so meddlesome and henpecking she. “Is this how the king of Israel acts? Cheer up! I’ll get you that land!”

So she brought some false charges against Naboth. Naboth was found guilty and put to death. Then the wicked queen told the king that Naboth was dead. Ahab was very happy. He took Naboth’s property by eminent domain and made it his own.

Ahab and Jezebel thought this was the end of the matter and they would enjoy their new property and live happily ever after. But God saw what had happened and he was really angry. He sent a preacher named Elijah to confront the wicked king and queen.

Now, Ahab didn’t really want to listen to this preacher. “Religion and government are separate things!” he believed. He didn’t think this preacher should try to influence what the government does at all.

Elijah didn’t care what the king thought! He wouldn’t keep quiet because he knew God wanted him to speak. So he told the king he was a very bad man—a murderer and a thief. He had no right to take this simple man’s property. Elijah said that God would bring death on him because of his wicked deeds—and on the wicked queen too. He even said that what the king did put a stain of sin on the whole land.

Everything the preacher said came true! Ahab died in battle and Jezebel was put to death by her own servants. She died right where Naboth died!

The little kingdom of “Israel” was a better kingdom once the wicked king and queen were gone. But the world has still not learned its lesson.

* “Public use” – According to the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, any property taken by the government through what we call eminent domain is for “public use.” A very unfortunate U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 allowed that “public use” could include forcing land away from one private owner and passing it to another private owner, who would then (hopefully) develop it, creating jobs, bring in more tax money, etc. The case was Kelo v. City of New London. Critics said the decision obliterated the distinction between “public use” and “private use.” In this case the results were horrible and utterly unproductive.

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Posted on by

Threat to Religious Freedom in San Francisco

Good for Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco! He actually believes that a Catholic school should teach and practice what that religion believes.

Many parochial schools have wandered from this and allowed the goal of giving a good education replace the goal of inculcating the teachings and values of the sponsoring church. The parents don’t mind a crucifix on the wall so long as faith and values aren’t stressed. A pastor or bishop who tries to turn the school back to its proper mission is in for headaches and opposition—in this case from the teachers’ union and politicians.

Archbishop Cordileone wants teachers who will stand for those teachings, not apologize for them, and do so with compassion. “We don’t want kids mouthing what we tell them to say. We want them to believe it. But to believe it they need living, breathing examples of people that are fulfilled living this, and they exist!”

That a religious school should be free in America to teach the faith and values it embraces should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, it isn’t.

Politicians, in disregard of the separation of church and state, have come out against the archbishop:
• The 11-person Board of Supervisors of San Francisco has unanimously approved a resolution opposing the archbishop’s policy.
• Eight California lawmakers have written a letter of opposition.

What an intrusion into religious conviction and expression! Turn the tables and imagine this—what if nineteen bishops high-pressured San Francisco’s government one way or the other on some non-religious issue? Listen and you will hear loud howling on how the “wall of separation” is being violated! *

In a written reply, the archbishop challenges the legislators, asking them:
“Would you hire a campaign manager who advocates policies contrary to those that you stand for, and who shows disrespect toward you and the Democratic Party in general?”

Joan Desmond asks in the National Catholic Register, “What is the primary mission of a Catholic high school?” All churches, Protestant or Catholic, need to ask this question about their educational institutions. If they have wandered ‘off mission’ they must be called back and held accountable. * *

And the government’s job is to support their freedom to do so, not erode it.

* Actually the First Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with the free exercise of religion. It safeguards the right of the citizens (including citizens who act collectively such as through a church) to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

* * If the church did allow its schools to slip “off mission” and “off message”, this is a warning to all religious schools. Much easier to keep strong in message and values than to let these things get diluted over the years and then try to restore them. Still, restore them they must (they needn’t choose between good values and good education). Otherwise, close the schools, save your money, and let the public system or secular private schools do the task of education.

Religious Freedom Laws Needed–and More Civility As Well

Posted on by

By Donald P. Shoemaker
PUBLISHED 4/5/15, LONG BEACH (CA) PRESS-TELEGRAM

Great political unity, left and right, religious and secular, led to passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. President Clinton signed it into law after it passed Congress with only three no votes.

The law simply said that the government could not substantially burden one’s free exercise of religion even if the burden was caused by a rule of general applicability, unless the government could show the rule furthered a compelling state interest and did so in the least restrictive way.

Why was RFRA needed? Because of the widely criticized U.S. Supreme Court decision Smith v. Oregon in 1990. The court ruled that the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion didn’t extend to neutral laws of general application that happened to affect religious practices, only to laws directly targeting religious practices.

The RFRA was passed to counter this decision. But in 1997 the Supreme Court overturned RFRA’s application to state and local statutes. In response, 20 states with more to come have passed their own versions of RFRA to support religious liberty at state and local levels.

What has happened to take us from the unity of 1993 to the acrimony of today? Why the intense opposition to Indiana’s new law? I offer two opinions and three proposals toward civility (but no longer unity).

First, I have watched erosion of support for religious liberty along with a growing lack of understanding of how important religious beliefs are to their adherents. Religion isn’t just an add-on that can be easily shelved. It is a sense of the Ultimate that goes to the core of one’s identity and conduct. Consciences formed by religious faith should not be burdened by the state (to require what faith forbids, or to forbid what faith requires), except in rare circumstances.

Second, LGBT issues were not on the table when the original RFRA was passed. The interfacing of these issues with many traditional religious beliefs has not been gentle, to say the least. Both sides are wary of the other. And those with religious convictions contrary to same-sex marriage are now moved to prevent violation of their own consciences.

Now I have three proposals for navigating these troubled waters with civility. The first is a call for clarity. Have critics and proponents of Indiana’s RFRA taken the time to read it? To read dispassionate analyses? The acrimony of recent days has been long on harsh polemic and short on clarity.

The second is a call for conversation. Are we talking to the other side and learning what each side’s concerns and understandings are? Or are we convinced we already know all the facts and what motivates the other side? An anti-gay sign, “God is your enemy,” and a sign held up in Indiana saying, “God and Muhammad are not real — your hate is,” are conversation stoppers, not promoters of civil discourse.

I’m an evangelical Christian with deep concerns over freedom of conscience issues. I can articulate these. I can also listen to perceptions others have about religious domination and laws they see as promoting discrimination.

A call for candor is third. However religious freedom laws address discrimination, the fact is these laws provide a defense that says, “Not so fast! The free exercise of my faith is being burdened and you have hurdles you must achieve before it can be limited.” Proponents should acknowledge this.

Critics should not charge that RFRA is a blank check for wide discrimination by those who merely use religion as a veneer. Nor should they ignore the burdening of the free exercise of religion taking place, probably to a degree the nation’s founders never intended.

The need for restoration of religious freedom shouldn’t exist, but it does. Robust religious liberty is our heritage. It must flourish alongside disagreement, neither suppressing nor being suppressed by the other.

Donald P. Shoemaker is pastor emeritus of Grace Community Church of Seal Beach

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”

Posted on by

Religious Liberty and Contraception under “Obamacare”
By Donald P. Shoemaker
Pastor Emeritus,
Grace Community Church of Seal Beach
Chair, Social Concerns Committee,
Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches

A couple’s personal, private decisions on contraception should be just that—personal and private.

If they belong to a religious community, they need to consider that religion’s teachings, at least if they seriously claim to be part of that faith community.

This couple would likely not want the government to have any directive in this matter. And in decades past most would not have expected the government (taxpayers) to pay for their contraception decision, or force others like religious colleges to pay for what they decide.

Fast-forward to “Obamacare” and contraception is now being treated as if it is a sacrament, a “Secular Eucharist” dispensed freely by government grace.

The administration’s original highhandedness (the statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on January 20, 2012) that would have run roughshod over religious scruples has morphed a lot, but there are still issues. At one end, the government would exempt “houses of worship”—a slender concession. At the other end, debates and court decisions mushroom over the mandate to secular businesses owned by people with religion-based objections to contraception—people trying to lead their businesses in the light of their values. In the middle are religion-based institutions other than churches—schools, hospitals, social agencies, etc.

That these institutions, absent a compelling state interest, should be able to implement policies reflecting their core moral values is, to me, a clear right. Enter Americans United for Separation of Church and State. One would think by its title this group would not want the government to boss the affairs of religious organizations, thereby breaching “the wall of separation”. But no, AU is seeking to intervene in behalf of students at the University of Notre Dame to ensure that their health plan gives access to contraceptives.

AU asserts, “Even if the University’s religious exercise were substantially burdened by the challenged regulations, there is a compelling interest for the imposition of that burden, namely, providing the affected women with access to contraception and the consequent control over their sexual lives, bodily integrity, and reproductive capacity.” Be sure to think through this statement carefully!! If the government has a “compelling interest” for burdening religious groups so as to grant women “control over their sex lives, bodily integrity and reproductive capacity”, that would include a duty to pay for ABORTION.

The key words here are “substantially burdened” and “compelling interest for the imposition of that burden.” This argument would override religious protection provided by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).

I find it interesting and frustrating that AU argued quite differently in 2002 when it opposed Catholic Charities (Catholic Charities of Sacramento vs. Superior Court) in a similar case about insurance coverage of contraceptives. AU argued then that the 1999 California statute requiring contraceptive coverage “should not be deemed to impose a ‘substantial burden’ on the exercise of religion because CC can opt to pay a stipend for contraceptive coverage rather than purchasing the coverage itself and can still issue statements and disclaimers against the use of contraception.” CC could also comply with the law by simply not offering prescription drug coverage at all, the California Supreme Court said! Not a good thought!

I’ll let legal experts debate Obamacare’s contraception mandate. I’ll continue to pray and work for a libertarian understanding of religious freedom.

I conclude here with, first, the observation that AU’s defense of separation of church and state is very often a veneer for the pursuit of its own liberal agenda. Second, AU has trotted out a letter signed by 1000 clergy that demands equal access to contraception. At the end of its blog labeling these signers “conscientious clergy” AU says, “This is not a theocracy, no matter what the Religious Right and its allies say.”

Come now! It is not theocratic to let a religious institution define and live out its own creed and mission.

Proclamation on Religious Freedom Day (January 16)

Posted on by

PROCLAMATION
honoring
Religious Freedom Day 2013

WHEREAS our nation’s founders recognized the importance of religious freedom and secured this liberty in the words of the First Amendment, declaring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and

WHEREAS the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, our country’s first legal safeguard for religious liberty, was adopted on January 16, 1786, and each year since 1994, the President of the United States has issued a proclamation on the importance of religious liberty recognizing, “our government did not create this liberty, but it cannot be too vigilant in securing its blessings;” and

WHEREAS the free exercise of religion has undergirded the social efforts of many Americans, notably Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose birthday on January 15th we commemorate each year; and

WHEREAS the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” including the right “to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance”; and

WHEREAS our country has embraced a tradition of religious liberty that has prevented religious domination, conflict and persecution and nurtured an environment where religion has flourished and where people have been left free to choose which faith they shall follow or none at all;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bob Foster, Mayor of Long Beach along with Gerrie Schipske, Councilwoman of the 5th District, on behalf of the City of Long Beach do hereby declare January 16, 2013 to be “Religious Freedom Day” in our community. We encourage city government, community groups, schools and places of worship to reaffirm their devotion to the principles of religious freedom and educate and reflect on the importance of religious liberty so it may continue secure as part of our nation’s fabric. We also encourage citizens and government to be mindful of the principles of religious liberty in their decisions, attitudes, and actions.

Dated: January 16, 2013

[Text prepared by Donald P. Shoemaker, Pastor Emeritus, Grace Community Church of Seal Beach. Adopted text modified the prepared text.]