The Liberty Blog

Why I Would Not Want To Burn A Holy Book

Barry Bussey — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:19:53 +0000

There is growing angst about a small Florida congregation that plans to make a spectacle by burning the Qur’an this coming September 11. The stated purpose of this showmanship is to maintain their right of religious expression and to send a message to the Islamic fundamentalists that they – this one, small Christian church in America – is not going to be intimidated.

“We feel it’s maybe the right time for America to stand up,” says Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. “How long are we going to bow down? How long are we going to be controlled by the terrorists, by radical Islam?”1

Few in the United States would dispute the right of this religious group to freely express themselves as they see fit. There are limits of course – Oliver Wendell Holmes’ proverbial adage that people do not have the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater – is one such limit. Holmes was very much of the view that one’s freedom of speech was limited by the circumstances So given the circumstance of America being at war – the mounting tensions between Islam and the Christian community in the West does that axiom apply here? Perhaps it would take all the constitutional lawyers and judicial opinions from Cape Cod to Laguna Beach to answer that, and even then we would have a different view from every legal authority who would venture such an opinion.

I happen to think there are a number of valid arguments against a church carrying out such an inflammatory act in the given environment. Some are legal, but I am going to venture to explain what is for me the most persuasive – the religious arguments.

First, the Lord Jesus noted that “whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”2

It is simple yet profound. Not complicated but deep. The truth is that I would not appreciate one wit if someone burned the Holy Bible as a means of expressing their religious right to do so or to express their disdain for the Scriptures. It would indeed be offensive to me. Similarly, I would not want to so offend another religious community by burning their holy book.

I happen to believe in Truth. That there is a right and a wrong. Things are not equal. It is not a matter of preference – it is a matter of objective, unadulterated, clear, and authoritative reality. I do not, in my personal understanding, claim to know it all – but I have no doubt that such Truth exists. Such Truth is found in the Holy Bible. Therefore I hold Scripture in great esteem.

Yet I also appreciate that though I have such an elevated concept of the Holy Bible I would not want to have any person suffer persecution of any sort for their misuse, defamation, burning or destruction of a physical copy of the Bible.

That may seem strange but it comes from the authority of Christ – who suffered horrible abuse from pagan Rome. He stated, “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.”3

The point is my God is able to look after Himself. He does not need me to punish the blasphemer – He may do that in His sovereign time if He desires. It is not my role.

Second, Jesus suggested that we are to “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.”4

Praying for our enemies prevents us from becoming like them – having hearts filled with hate. Ironically the burning of a holy book as proposed by this Florida church is what an Islamic fundamentalist would be expected to do. Thus the church runs the risk of taking on the very characteristics of those to whom they are directing this protest. The alleged persecuted becomes the persecutor. The very mischief that praying for our enemies was meant to solve. Such activity only fuels the perverted mind that Christians are indeed at war with Islam.

So then I would not want to burn a holy book of any religious community because I would not want my Holy Bible burned nor do I want to adopt the mindset of my enemies. I’d rather hold a prayer meeting and pray that the Lord will soften their hearts and that they eschew hatred. It is a simply principle of reciprocity.

1 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/07/pastor-says-church-deterred-petraeus-warning-koran-burning/

2 Matthew 7:12, KJV

3 Matthew 5:11, NKJV

4 Matthew 5: 44,45, NKJV

Gay Judge Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional

Alan J. Reinach — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:37:25 +0000

Yesterday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. He ruled that the Proposition, which had been passed by a majority of Californians in 2008, serves no legitimate government purpose. He held, rather, that it deprives same-sex couples of the fundamental right to marry, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

This ruling was predictable.

Several months ago, as the trial was in progress, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article “outting” judge Walker as a well-known homosexual. This caused considerable consternation and hand-wringing because it inevitably meant that his opinion would lack credibility. No matter what he wrote about the trial, about the evidence, or about the role of marriage in society, the perception would be that his opinion was biased.

It has always been expected that this issue will be decided on appeal, and quite possibly by the United States Supreme Court.

A more detailed analysis of the court’s holding will have to await careful scrutiny of the entire 138 page decision. However, it is clear that the judge derided Proposition 8 as reflecting only the voters’ moral disapproval of same-sex marriage, rather than any legitimate interests of the state. So, according to the judge, human civilization has been wrong for thousands of years in defining marriage as an institution for heterosexual couples, and there is, in his judgment, no reason at all for society to preserve such a biological distinction. Thus, the judge concluded that the will of the majority of voters must be overturned in the absence of any public interest supporting Proposition 8.

The Church State Council, a religious liberty ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church located in California, advocated in favor of Proposition 8. It is our conviction that marriage reflects something fundamental about human nature and society, and that society ought to do all in its power to strengthen marriage so that all children enjoy the benefits of a father and a mother. The Council took pains to express that it does not take public positions with respect to gay rights, generally, and does not oppose the rights and interests of the gay and lesbian community. However, the conflict between gay rights and religious liberty has become so acute that it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage, not only for its own sake, but for the sake of preserving the freedoms of religious institutions to uphold biblical teachings regarding human sexuality.

What the court overlooked, most essentially, is that same-sex marriage converts the institution from a child-centered institution bounded by principles of natural morality, to a self-centered one, based on personal gratification and self-created moral values. So long as society regards marriage as a matter of personal choice, society undermines the stability of relationships. At trial, an expert testifying in favor of same-sex marriage conceded, on cross-examination, that only about 10% of same sex married couples are monogamous, sexually. The term “marriage,” therefore, is uniquely inappropriate to describe a same-sex institution where 90% of couples are sexually promiscuous. Clearly, whatever the institution is, it is not marriage as society has customarily practiced and defined it. Moreover, once one has accepted gay marriage, there is no logical stopping point regarding other kinds of intimate relationships, including polygamy, polyandry, or certain kinds of incest.

My generation is obtaining the sexual freedom it fought for – but at what cost?

A MOSQUE TWO BLOCKS FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Alan J. Reinach — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 03:34:49 +0000

The last political hurdle to the establishment of a Muslim community center two blocks north of the World Trade Center in New York City was overcome yesterday, when the NYC Landmarks Commission rejected pleas to determine the status of a mid-nineteenth century building’s historic significance based on the religious identity of its owner. It unanimously determined that the building lacked historic significance, and refused to impose restrictions on the alteration and use of the building.

Some politicians and commentators have turned this into a major national debate and political issue, accusing the sponsors of the project of having terrorist links, and inflaming passions about the establishment of a Muslim center in downtown Manhattan. Despite the emotional claim the Muslim center will be at “ground zero”, in fact it will be two full city blocks away – surrounded by tall buildings and not visible from the World Trade Center site. Indeed, it is unlikely that anyone visiting the WTC would even find the Muslim center, unless they were specifically looking for it.

A couple of weeks ago, I appeared on Fox News to defend the right of the Muslim organization to develop its own property. I’m a New Yorker and I felt as angry as any American after the 9/11 attacks. Nevertheless, I debated an activist whose only theme was to claim with no evidence that the sponsors are associated with terrorism. First, I reminded him that his organization has championed government neutrality toward religion, and opposed “religious viewpoint discrimination,” yet he was asking the Landmark Commission to discriminate on the basis of the religious views of the owner. I also suggested that it was perfectly appropriate for Muslims to visit the tragic site, and to have a center nearby where they could go and pray and meditate about the event. Finally, I reminded viewers that the Landmark Commission had no business taking religion into account when it determined the historic significance of the building.

Thankfully, the Landmark Commission carried out its appointed task, and considered the building on its own merits, rather than on the basis of religious bigotry.

Despite the accusations of terrorist links, responsible journalism suggests that the sponsors of the project represent the sort of Muslims who are seeking to establish a society where Jews, Christians and Muslims can live together in peace. See, time magazine article, for example: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008432,00.html

Thankfully, too, some politicians clearly “get it,” as Mayor Bloomberg demonstrated in his speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyq0ulsa2um&feature=player_embedded#!

To their credit, the property owners wish to develop a center for interfaith dialogue and outreach, to help shape values of peaceful coexistence and mutual respect. New York City has always opened its arms to such immigrants, despite the fact that every new wave of immigrants faced its own obstacles of prejudice, rejection and fear. Some things don’t change. But we can work to change them, and to defend the rights of all Americans, including Muslim Americans.

Proposition 8 Case - Building a National Consensus?

Barry Bussey — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 03:05:49 +0000

Judge Vaughn R. Walker held today that the Proposition 8 initiative that California citizens voted for in 2008 “does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples.”

Read the case here.

He also noted that it “fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.”

Reaction to this ruling has been swift and hard hitting. Not surprising given the nature of the matter. Both sides in the debate have contacted their supporters for more funding to keep up the fight as the case will now go through the appeals process until finally reaching the US Supreme Court where the matter will be settled – once and for all? Maybe. Who is to say what kind of machinations will come in future congresses?

It is peculiar that Judge Walker felt that Prop 8 did nothing more than state that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples and there was no rational basis to deny them a marriage license. Indeed the defendants in this case did put forward a rational argument – the idea that the state has an interest in promoting procreative relations in “enduring, stable unions,” so that children are raised by both their mom and their dad. Obviously the Judge did not accept that view but to say it is not “rational”? It seems such a view itself is not rational. Rationality it seems is not the issue.

For now the ACLU is exuberant proclaiming that the ruling “strikes at the heart of the extremist-driven campaign to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry. And it’s a huge turning point in the decades-long struggle for equality.” They argue that “Today’s ruling shows that we can stop extremist forces who want to impose their own narrow view of morality on the rest of us.”

In trying to deal with the “extremists” it is of utmost importance, they say, to demonstrate “that there is a national consensus in support of marriage and other relationship protections for same-sex couples in states across the country.”

Of course this begs the question of “Exactly what does a “national consensus” look like?” So far, citizens who have spoken through referenda across the country have been overwhelming – they support heterosexual marriage not homosexual marriage.

Perhaps what is meant by a “national consensus” is a consensus of court rulings that go in favor of same-sex marriage? But that does not work either - as so far 2/3 of the courts that have ruled on the matter have ruled against same-sex marriage.

It seems it will take a while yet to get to a “national consensus” in their favor - not saying of course that that day might not come – it’s just it is not here right now.

So who are those ‘extremists forces’ wanting to impose their narrow view of morality on the rest of us?

I’ll let you decide.

What will be most problematic is what will happen to religious freedom if this new “national consensus” does take hold and there are religious groups who will not so consent? What then? Stay tuned.

It’s Official: Supreme Court Rules that Christianity Is Unlawful Discrimination!

Alan J. Reinach — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:52:45 +0000

It has been twenty years since the Supreme Court issued its decision in the peyote case, profoundly disrespectful of the rights of free exercise of religion. In the interim, there has been at least some hope that the courts would eventually come to realize the value of preserving religious freedom, and make a course correction. For this legal observer, these hopes were dashed by the recent decision involving a student chapter of the Christian Legal Society at the Hastings Law School, part of the University of California.
The case arose in 2004, when the law school denied the CLS chapter official recognition, citing two of its written policies as in violation of the school’s generic non-discrimination policy, a policy that applied generally to all activities of the school, including admissions and faculty hiring and retention. CLS was cited for requiring members to sign a statement of faith, which included a pledge of sexual fidelity to biblical standards of monogamy. Although the policy did not make any mention of homosexual conduct, it was held to be discriminatory against gays and lesbians. The policy was also regarded as offensive to the policy requiring no religious discrimination.
Before proceeding with our analysis, a disclaimer is needed. I first joined the Christian Legal Society as a first year law student at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill School of Law, upon my arrival in the fall of 1984. I was eager for the Christian fellowship in such a demanding academic environment. I found the CLS chapter to be a wonderful association of sincere Christian students. We had widely divergent political and religious doctrinal beliefs, and engaged in vigorous discussions. But we were united by a common love of Jesus Christ, that surpassed any differences.
The Court relied upon the university’s interpretation of its non-discrimination policy that it required all groups to admit “all comers” without regard to beliefs. This interpretation was announced a year after the CLS chapter was first excluded, and was never put in writing, as Justice Alito observed in his dissent. More to the point, the policy was not applied to any group until the CLS chapter was excluded. Several other student groups had membership requirements that restricted members on the basis of belief, or even national origin. But CLS was the only one denied formal recognition. The facts strongly supported the CLS claim that its chapter had been the victim of religious discrimination.
George Orwell would understand the Supreme Court’s decision. In his famous novel, 1984, he wrote of a totalitarian society where propaganda was used as a tool to retain power and maintain social order and docility. The language was perverted so that “war” meant “peace.” It was called “newspeak.” The newspeak irony of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the CLS chapter suffered religious discrimination, but it is the one being regarded as the “discriminator.”
It gets worse. In a concurring opinion, Justice Stevens shows the true colors of the court when he cites other examples of discriminators who may properly be excluded by a university’s non-discrimination policy:
“Other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women – or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks, and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities.”
We have observed in previous postings that the California Supreme Court has equated discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with race discrimination. Justice Stevens’ opinion was read by his law clerks and fellow justices before it was published. That no one in this group realized that comparing the student Christian club to other clubs organized on the basis of hostility to Jews, blacks or women would be profoundly offensive to Christians is not only shocking but profoundly disturbing. This cannot bode well for future religious freedom claims, especially those brought by those reflecting authentic biblical values, whether Christian or Jewish.
The majority opinion by Justice Ginsberg is also troubling for other reasons. The Court regarded the university’s policy as “facially neutral” and “viewpoint neutral,” therefore requiring a low level of judicial scrutiny. In this way, the decision is an offspring of the peyote case, in which free exercise claims are subordinated to “facially neutral” laws or policies. Although Justice Alito wrote a vigorous dissent, at no time did he disagree with the low level of judicial scrutiny applied to “expressive association” claims, which combine free speech and association rights. Instead, he would have found sufficient evidence of the discriminatory application of the policies to justify ruling for the CLS chapter. Thus, the entire court seems committed to upholding even egregious violations of free speech, association and religion, so long as they are couched in sufficiently “neutral” terms.
In briefs filed with the court, both evangelical and orthodox Jewish groups contended that a ruling in favor of the university would have a chilling impact on the opportunities for religious groups at college campuses across the nation. In an effort at damage control, some of the commentary following the decision has emphasized the narrow scope of the Court’s ruling. I am not optimistic that the decision’s influence will be moderate. The case signals that the values of diversity, inclusiveness, and non-discrimination may well be interpreted and applied in a manner that continues to regard groups holding biblical distinctives as the perpetrators of discrimination, rather than the ones whose rights have been violated. This trend is worrisome especially as the conflict between gay rights and religious liberty heats up.

15 Years of US-Vietnam Diplomatic Relations

Barry Bussey — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 02:43:39 +0000

Twenty years ago people said it was impossible. The US having diplomatic relations with Vietnam? No way! Yet here I was at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, DC attending a reception honouring 15 years of that very thing.

I marvelled at the cordiality of the people in the room. Military officials from both countries from amongst the various forces chatting and talking as if they had just rediscovered old friendships. Diplomats not only from the US and Vietnam but from other Asian countries such as the Philippines, and Singapore all gathered to celebrate the occasion.

One never knows what to expect on these occasions. As a representative of the Seventh-day Adventist Church you simply look for those “Divine Appointments.” You don’t know who it will be or what the topic of discussion will be – you are just there. That is how it is in our work – we have a ministry of presence – show up and things will happen. It is very exciting that way.

I mingled amongst the crowd in an attitude of prayer – of thanksgiving really. Thanks that there was peace between these two former enemies. How awesome it would be if the people of the earth would adopt an attitude of magnanimity and goodwill – allowing for dialogue to settle differences rather than the sword. Many of us have friends who are Vietnam veterans. The stories some have told me are not what you want to tell your kids before they go to bed at night. The feelings are as fresh as the moment the horrors occurred. Yet despite those realities grudges had to give way to peaceful relations.

We have been reaching out to the Vietnam Embassy in recent years. Dr. Graz has visited there along with Lincoln Steed. We have hosted delegations – met with embassy officials. All in an attempt to create dialogue on the importance of religious freedom. As a church we have been doing what we can to assist in their rebuilding of their country. Grigg’s University for example provides an M.B.A. education to working professionals. To date, more than 2,000 students have benefited from the program in Hanoi. Vietnam is a country with much promise and wonderful people.

Former President Clinton spoke to the group of his memories when in 1995 he normalized relations. If you remember it was a very controversial decision at the time. Some in Congress argued that it was a “wrong decision at the wrong time.” But 15 years later it has proved to have been the right decision – (as a side note it is really too bad it could not have been sooner). But as Clinton noted while we are not to forget the past neither are we to be held captive to it – we have to move forward.

Two other speakers gave presentations that were meaningful. Senators John McCain and John Kerry also spoke. Both veterans of that tortuous war. Senator McCain’s willingness to seek peace with an enemy who had so brutally assaulted him while a POW says much not only about him as great human being but to the power of forgiveness. Indeed it is that power that can go a long way in mankind recognizing the ultimate futility of war.

I am reminded of the beautiful passage of Scripture – Micah 4:3

And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

There remains a few more hotspots around the world that could use the Lord’s spirit of peace and reconciliation applied. It is far fetched perhaps, but what a time it would be if there was a similar meeting as the one I attended tonight between the US and Iran – or how about Israel and Palestine? It might take decades yet for that to happen – but two decades ago people never thought that a reception honouring the diplomatic relations between the US and Vietnam would ever come.

The Paper Chase That Not All Can Run

Barry Bussey — Thu, 20 May 2010 03:05:39 +0000

Many of us did it when we were young and in school. Not all our friends wanted to but those who were willing to abide by the rules joined. That’s how it was done – how we made our own club with our own rules. It wasn’t complicated. But try to do that in law school. That is a different kettle of fish altogether. There the obvious is not so obvious - the uncomplicated becomes very complicated and convoluted.

Enter a group of Christian law students in 2004 at the University of California Hastings Law School near San Francisco. They wanted a club of like minded members. They put together their constitution and bylaws not unlike other “Registered Student Organizations” (RSOs). They elected amongst themselves a leadership group and outlined the process of how other law students might want to become members. Not surprisingly for a Christian group they required their members to agree to a statement of faith that included a provision against living an immoral lifestyle.

As it turned out, all the other RSOs on campus had their own rules about who could and could not be a member of their respective group. For example, the La Raza RSO was open to those of Hispanic descent, the National Lawyers Guild required members to agree with their objectives. On that campus there are groups focused on any number of identifiable characteristics and interests including race, politics, culture, ethnicity, human sexuality and religion. But it was the seemingly prudish stance of the Christian law students that brought consternation amongst the learned halls of the Hastings Law School.

While other RSOs received the benefits of university rooms to hold their meetings, eligibility to apply for funding, access to communicate their activities to the student body through email, bulletin boards and the like, listing in the student directories of organizations and the ability to be part of the Student Organizations Fair – the Christian law students were excluded. From a common sense point of view – without regard to the legal argument of rights of association, freedom of speech and religion – such a disregard seems unfathomable.

So what brought about this animus? Was there some untoward activity of the CLS group that jeopardized the University in some way? Perhaps there was unruly behaviour from some Christian law students having too much to drink or carousing that upset the standards? No, there was none of that – but what brought about the scorn of the University was the unrepentant audacity of this Christian group to only permit those members to vote and be eligible for office who would sign a statement of belief. They had to agree to the Divinity of Jesus Christ as Savior of man, the Trinity, the Bible as the inspired Word of God. That they “must exemplify the highest standards of morality as set forth in Scripture” in order “that their profession of Christian faith is credible.” That they must “abstain from ‘acts of the sinful nature.”

In March 2004 the National CLS adopted a policy that disqualified any individual from becoming a member for “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle … inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith,” and applied to “all acts of sexual conduct outside of God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, which acts include fornication, adultery, and homosexual conduct.” Therein lay the great matter to be addressed – the anachronistic audacity to hold a belief that sexual expression should be held in check. This was not the CLS imposing its view on other groups – it was simply dealing with its own internal members. But that was too much in the eyes of some.

The CLS students filed their registration papers to the Office of Student Services but were later informed that their by-laws had to be amended as they violated the religion and sexual orientation provisions of the Nondiscrimination Policy of the University. The University rejected as insufficient the fact that all students were welcome to attend the CLS meetings. “To be one of our student-recognized organizations,” the Hastings lawyer wrote, “CLS must open its membership to all students irrespective of their religious beliefs or sexual orientation.”

That policy appears out of sorts with the school’s forbearance of other recognized groups such as Outlaw, the gay rights group on campus that reserves the right to remove any officer who “work[s] against the spirit of the organization’s goals and objectives” or the requirement of the Hastings Democratic Caucus that its members are not to “exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the object of the organization as stated in….” it’s bylaws which is “to advance Democratic Party principles.”

CLS sued.

In preparation for trial during discovery proceedings the Dean of the law school stated that a registered group must “allow all of our students to be members and full participants if they want to.” She argued that a Republican has a right to become a member of the Democratic Club; the pro-life group must allow membership to those with pro-choice views and so on. There was never any indication that such a broad understanding of the school’s policy was ever enforced on any other group but the CLS.

Outlaw sought leave to intervene in the litigation arguing that its members, (supporters of their objective “to alleviate and eradicate homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and other affronts to the dignity of individual human beings”), were excluded from CLS membership and they objected to their student fees supporting CLS.

CLS lost.

Summary judgment was given to the University and the Outlaw student group. The court reasoned that denying CLS RSO status made no significant impact. It was still able to meet and recruit members – just that they had to go off campus. Further, it did not adequately show that its views would be impaired if it were required “to admit gay, lesbian, and non-Christian students.” Even if it did have a significant impact the court was of the view that “Hastings has a compelling interest in prohibiting discrimination on its campus.”

CLS appealed but lost.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal opined (in a two sentence decision) that “all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group.”

So then here it is in a nutshell: Hastings law school allows student groups on any number of permutations – race, culture, etc – they have a non-discrimination policy that is interpreted to mean that all students regardless of belief or status are eligible to members of any group. Even if they hold views diametrically opposed to the group’s objectives. There was no evidence that any other group had that policy enforced on them save the Christian Legal Society. The two lower courts agreed with that arrangement.

CLS appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During oral argument on April 19, 2010 in Washington, DC – Michael McConnell, CLS counsel, argued that, “If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study, and if CLS does not promise to allow this the college will bar them from its forum for speech.” The school’s policy was “unconstitutional and manifestly overbroad.” He argued that to allow it to remain would force organizations to accept those who could undermine the group. “What if an NAACP chapter would have to let a racist skinhead sit in on its meetings?”

Throughout the case there has been some confusion as to what exactly Hastings policy said. It had a written policy which stated, that there would be no student group that discriminated unlawfully. But under deposition the Dean announced that the interpretation of that policy was that the school required all student clubs to admit all students who so requested membership. There could be no discrimination based on status or beliefs – there could be discrimination only on a merit based test. That policy has become known as the “all-comers policy.”

CLS maintained such a policy is overbroad to the Hastings policy to promote diversity of viewpoints amongst the RSO. It has long been the law that any restriction on a student speech forum must not be beyond what is required by the purpose. The stated purpose of Hastings is that their policy is to promote diversity of viewpoints amongst the RSO. McConnell argued, “If the student organizations are not allowed to have a coherent set of beliefs, there can be no diversity among them.”

Justice Ginsburg countered that “It may be an ill-advised policy, but the school says: It’s our policy, it’s working fine, and all the hypotheticals about sabotage, takeover, they haven’t happened.” Yet as McConnell pointed out they did not happen because it was not until 2005 when the Dean first enunciated the “all-comers” policy. Freedom of association is naturally the right to be able to form groups around shared beliefs. The CLS argues that Hastings would be well within the law to require an “all-comers” policy on the basis of status – but belief is wide open.

The CLS has maintained throughout the litigation that they will not limit membership on the basis of sexual orientation (status) as long as all members believe in accordance with the statement of faith. Thus if a gay student can conscientiously sign the statement of faith he or she will be eligible for full membership in CLS.

Justice Scalia noted, “…it is so weird to require the campus Republican Club to admit Democrats, not just to membership, but to officership. To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right? That’s crazy.”

Gregory G. Garre, counsel for Hastings argued that the written non-discrimination policy of the school is not the issue to be decided but rather the interpretation of that policy – confusingly referred to as the “all-comers policy”. The “all-comers policy” states that all groups that receives subsidy from the school must admit all-comers – regardless of status or belief. This ensures that all students enjoy equal access to school subsidized and recognized activities. He referenced that it was in keeping with California Education Code 66270.

Chief Justice Roberts then asked, “is it your position that California law requires religious groups to admit people who do not believe in their religious beliefs and in fact to conduct services of that group?”

Garre replied affirmative stating that “we think that the program is reasonable.”

What is reasonable for some is clearly is not reasonable for others. One has to wonder how a policy of seeking diversity of viewpoints limits those viewpoints to only one – namely that all beliefs on the limiting of sexual behaviour are wrong and will not be tolerated. It seems rather sparse.

The promise of America surely includes the right to believe whatever one so desires without limitation. This is so even if it means that such belief is repugnant to the majority – or the elite opinion makers of the day. The practice of such beliefs by necessity will be subject to constraint. That is to be expected. What is not expected is for a modern law school to be so concerned about what a group of students believe – on any given subject – that it would refuse their right of association. The study of law has been called a paper chase – a race to understand the frontiers of legal analysis, theory and practice. Yet as this case clearly demonstrates for some institutions there is an apparent limit to what beliefs individuals may hold in such pursuit. It is now up to the Supreme Court to determine whether such limits are constitutional and in keeping with America’s promise.

Neither Fish Nor Fowl Amongst A Blood Sport

Barry Bussey — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:08:25 +0000

Representing the Adventist Church in political circles is one fraught with potential misunderstanding. The political context can be polarizing at times. Politics, known as a “blood sport,” often demands that a person or organization be in favor of one political proposal at the expense of another. While at the same time politics is an “art of compromise” - a compromise of one’s own view or principle to arrive at an agreement. Living with such dissonance is uncomfortable. As a Christian – as an Adventist Christian – such things as “blood sport” and “compromise” is even more difficult to deal with. We have our basic fundamental principles that cannot be compromised. It would be dishonest to do so – yet we are called upon to take a decision.

When Public Affairs and Religious Liberty (PARL) leaders express the view of the Church – sometimes we find ourselves being labelled “Republican” or “Democrat” based on the given subject at hand. If we compliment a policy of the current Obama administration on the issue of internet freedom regarding religious expression we are labelled “Democratic” supporters. If, however we support an opinion of a Republican politician on the issue of religious freedom in the workplace we are labelled as “Republican” supporters. The truth is we are neither of those – neither a Democratic supporter nor a Republican supporter in the raw political sense. We are simply advancing the position that we are called upon to proclaim – religious freedom as a basic human right for all mankind. Dead stop. Nothing more and nothing less.

The Adventist Church is not interested – nor should it ever be – in the taking of sides with one political actor against another upon the stage. Rather we will take a side on an issue, based on our principle, regardless of which actor, party or non-party supports the matter. This thinking stems from the teaching of Christ when the political leaders of the day attempted to corner Him on the support of the state. They sought to embarrass Him by asking, “Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”

If He were to say that it is not lawful to pay taxes He would have been accused of revolt – against the state or the party in power; and if He had said to give full allegiance to the state He would have been accused of not accepting the political position of the religious leaders in opposing the state. He was, in the mind of some, caught.

He asked for a coin. “Whose image and inscription is this?”

They said to Him, “Caesar’s.”

And He said to them, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

When they heard this – Scripture says, “they marveled.” (Matt. 22:17-22.)

He was neither a Sadducee, nor a Pharisee, nor a Herodian – He was/is the Son of God.

God is neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a conservative, nor a liberal – He cannot be pinned down to one of man’s nomenclature. He is who He is. And likewise the Adventist Church’s work cannot be categorized by any political party platform.

NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST

Barry Bussey — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:12:11 +0000

President Obama continued the tradition set in place by President Eisenhower in 1953 attending the National Prayer Breakfast. There has been some controversy over that practice. The Boston Globe, for instance has called it “Bad Religion.” “[T]he tradition amounts to a religious festival of American Christian nationalism,” writes James Carroll, “…this overtly theological claim on God’s favour goes to the heart of the imperial hubris that has led to one foreign policy disaster after another…. Official government exercises that assume divine license for the nation, whether celebrated with china and linen in Washington or with meals-ready-to-eat at Special Forces camps in Afghanistan, are bad politics. Equally troubling, their presumptuous appropriation of God’s will makes them bad religion.”

Carroll’s criticism is well taken - certainly a point to ponder. We can so easily get caught up in the moment and fail to step back and consider the bigger picture. Nations from time to time need a humble sober second thought as to its purpose and role. The American nation is certainly without equal in the history of man – yet it must be mindful of history’s stories of empires that fell as a result of irrational exuberance claiming that God was only on their side.

The President’s speech at the breakfast reveals a president under enormous strain as he seeks to manoeuvre through the cacophony that portrays itself as political discourse on the Hill in recent weeks. His speech was a call to civility. He admonished the political class to put away “the abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power,” and consider the needs of the “slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care.” Washington is not serving the people as it should. The politicians are not listening to each other. “And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion.” “Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable…is not a sign of weakness. Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right…. surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith…. Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common.”

Prayer, noted the President, “…can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a spirit of brotherhood. It can remind us that each of us are children of a awesome and loving God.” Later, “Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God.”

President Obama’s speech certainly has a lot to be commended. Given the very contentious issues on Capitol Hill these days the country requires a leadership that is willing to put away partisan politics for the good of the whole. The prognosis is not good however. Politics is indeed a blood sport. Currently we see that public opinion is moving away from the status quo – the political machinery and human nature seems to be hardwired for conflict. And given the upcoming mid-term elections such conflict may intensify. For this reason it behoves us, as people of faith, to prayer for the Lord’s wisdom to be upon those in power as we are admonished to do in 1 Timothy 2:1-4.

The Much Ado About Tebow

Barry Bussey — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:40:48 +0000

There is nothing like a pro-life message in a TV ad during the Super Bowl to ignite the blogosphere and the editorial pages of the nation. For weeks the “pro-choice” community were proclaiming the unfairness of CBS allowing Focus on the Family air a pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow. Much ink and cyberspace was taken up in polemics even before the ad was made public – but it was the idea of such an ad that caused so much consternation. Ideas have consequences – and to think that a pro-life ad would show up at the Super Bowl potentially affecting public opinion – seemed so – so outrageous by some - especially when other “advocacy” ads were rejected by the same CBS.

While ideas have consequences the narrative has influence. There is nothing more powerful than a story. We relate to stories. We are able to put ourselves into a context with some else’s experience. A story of an event is neither right nor wrong – it just is. Yet they nevertheless convey the lessons that life teaches. It is the story then that makes us who we are. That is why airing the stories of the Tim Tebows of the world are so important. They not only influence but teach. Especially is this so with such sensitive topics as is abortion.

By now we are all aware of the 6’3” quarterback at the University of Florida. In summary, should in the unlikely event a reader may not yet know, while pregnant Tim’s mother suffered a serious pathogenic amoeba infection. Her medical treatment resulted in the unborn Tim experiencing a placental abruption. The doctors recommended an abortion. She refused. Tim was born in Manila, Philippines where his parents were living and working as Christian missionaries. He was homeschooled and is not ashamed of the Gospel even though he is a public figure.

The retelling of Tim’s story in two 30 second ads on Super Bowl Sunday caused a cyber war of words amongst the opposing sides of the abortion issue. One of most cutting, and sarcastic verbiage came from the renowned Richard Dawkins – the evolutionary apologist and polemicist. Tim “…isn’t very good at thinking,” the erudite Dawkins proclaimed, “Perhaps the fact that he was home schooled by missionary parents is to blame.”

With such a condescending attitude Dawkins presented the “fallacy” of the pro-life argument. He quotes Peter Medawar, “the world is no more likely to be deprived of a Beethoven by abortion than by chaste absence from intercourse.” The implication is that the world would not have been deprived of a Tim Tebow if he was aborted. This is because the sperm that conceived Time was one of 40 million and any other would have resulted in somebody else – “Probably not such a good quarterback but - we can but hope - a better logician, who might have survived the home schooling and broken free.”

While Dawkins claims the pro-life argument fallacious one cannot but conclude that Dawkins is dealing with the fictitious. He fails to accept reality. Rather he posits an argument “of Tim’s unborn sister (let us say), who would have been conceived two months later if only Tim had been aborted. Admittedly, she is not in a position to complain of her non-existence. But then nor would Tim have been in a position to complain of his non-existence, if he had been aborted.” The point is however – Tim exists – and he also existed at the time when his mother made her decision to keep him – though he was yet unborn.

Well and good the debate rages on – Dawkins to his credit suggests such “unthought-through nonsense” should not be banned as it would infringe free speech. For Dawkins, “an aborted fetus has exactly the same mental and moral status as any of the countless trillions of unconceived babies.” The fact that he deals in fiction is not reason enough, in my view, to ban his writings. We will agree to disagree and continue to live in our democracy without fear of reprisal for sharing very different views.