religious freedom | Ain't Complicated

Canada: Eroding Freedoms

Two stories via Persecuted Church:

Hutterite colony loses battle over photo ID

Yesterday (July 24, 2009) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that all driver’s licences in Alberta must require photo ID regardless of one’s religious beliefs. After hearing the appeal by members of the Wilson Hutterite Colony more than nine months ago, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered a close 4-3 judgment to uphold Alberta rules requiring a digital photo for all new licences. Some Hutterite sects, however, believe the second commandment forbidding idolatry prohibits them from willingly having their photograph taken.

Saskatchewan marriage commissioner loses appeal

Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Janet McMurty has upheld the ruling of the human rights tribunal that marriage commissioner, Orville Nichols did not have the right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple in April 2004 on basis of his personal Christian beliefs. The tribunal had also ordered Nichols to pay the complainant (a man identified only as M.J.) $2,500 in compensation.

Nichols had appealed the May 23, 2009 ruling, arguing that his religious beliefs should be protected under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. McMurty dismissed his argument, however, in her 39-page ruling today, concluding that the human rights tribunal was “correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols’ religious beliefs was not required.”

The Hutterite story is of particular interest to me since their historical roots are Anabaptist, just like mine.

Religious Freedom Exemption

If you’re interested in Oregon and/or in religious freedom legal issues and/or public schools, this will interest you.

A bill passed by the Oregon Legislature that broadens religious freedom in the workplace has prompted protests by some faith leaders because it exempts schools.

The bill requires employers to allow workers to wear certain clothing, grow beards and take certain days off to observe their religious practices. But it specifically carves out school districts in Oregon, one of two states that expressly forbid teachers from wearing religious clothing.

[…]

The bill, titled the “Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act” grants workers wide religious leeway as long as the activity, clothing or other practices don’t cause an undue hardship on the employer. Religious organizations typically applaud such measures.

But the school exemption has highlighted what some think is a glaring hole in Oregon’s efforts to expand religious freedoms.

[…]

Oregon has had a law on the books for decades that states: “No teacher in any public school shall wear any religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher.” Pennsylvania has a similar law.

Oregon’s law was tested in the 1980s, when a Sikh teacher was suspended from her job as a Eugene special education teacher for wearing a white turban and white clothes to class. The case went before the Oregon Supreme Court, which upheld the suspension. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

I saw this night before last, saved it as a draft to post yesterday, and forgot.

Source: The Oregonian

Freer Again?

This sounds like good news from Kazakhstan:

According to the Constitutional Council (CC), the amendments to the religion law, passed by the Kazakhstan Parliament in late 2008, are in conflict with the country’s Constitution, CC chairman Igor Rogov said.

[…]

The bill passed by the parliament involved, in particular, changes and amendments to the section of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which imposed liability for violating the law on the freedom of religion and religious associations.

It also suggested detailed regulation of religious groups.

A Limit to Religious Freedom

Christian group blamed for mumps outbreak

Conservative Christians who refuse vaccinations have been linked to an outbreak of mumps in British Columbia. The controversy has raised ethical issues, and sparked debate over the limits of religious rights.

Douglas Todd, religion writer for The Vancouver Sun, has covered the story extensively.

Todd cited medical ethicists who questioned the Christian group’s position. Alister Browne, director of ethics and law at the University of British Columbia medical school, said, “I don’t think this issue is a small matter.” He added that the ethical importance of a society protecting the health of children and others against infectious disease must be weighed against a person’s right to religious freedom, and the level of risk to others when immunizations are refused.

Michael McDonald, a professor in the Maurice Young Centre for Applied Ethics at the University of British Columbia, went further. He argued that adults in the Chilliwack community may be ethically required to accept vaccinations to protect their children and members of the larger society, since the health and safety of others — particularly children — is a justified “limit to religious freedom.”

Do you agree?

And another less PC question: If these were Muslims, would Mr. McDonald say the same thing?

I’m sure you don’t know the answer to the second question. But surely you know the answer to the first.

Anabaptists During the Revolution

Ironically, once the fight for liberty started, the freedom of nonresistant Christians became sharply limited.

Anabaptists During the American Revolution

The Liberties of Nonresistant Christians. Some Americans supported neither side in the Revolution. Instead, as Mennonite and German Baptist leaders said in 1775, “We have dedicated ourselves to serve all men in everything that can be helpful to the preservation of men’s lives, but…we are not at liberty in conscience to take up arms to conquer our enemies, but rather to pray to God, who has power in heaven and on earth, for us and them.” Chief among these nonresistant Christians were the Quakers, Mennonites, German Baptists, Moravians, and Schwenkfelders.

Most nonresistant Christians were quite content with their lot as British subjects. As three Mennonite bishops in Pennsylvania wrote in 1773, “Through God’s mercy we enjoy unlimited freedom in both civil and religious matters.” Ironically, once the fight for liberty started, the freedom of nonresistant Christians became sharply limited.

Militia Duty. The first issue that peace-promoting Christians faced was militia duty. After Lexington and Concord, patriot committees called all able-bodied men to join a voluntary association “to learn the art of war.” The associators noticed that the nonresistant Christians did not join in the drills. They demanded laws requiring everybody to serve.

In November 1775, Mennonite and German Baptist ministers sent A Short and Sincere Declaration to the Pennsylvania assembly. They suggested an alternative to militia duty. They would donate money to help poor families left destitute because their men were off fighting. Instead Pennsylvania passed a law levying a special war tax on all non-associators. Later it said nonresistant Christians could hire substitutes or pay a fine. Most nonresistant Christians refused to do either, because as the Short and Sincere Declaration stated, they found “no freedom in giving, or doing, or assisting in anything by which men’s lives are destroyed or hurt.” Therefore, Patriot officials confiscated their property to pay the tax and fines.

Who is Caesar?

Independence created another problem for the nonresistant Christians. Was King George III or was the Continental Congress the Caesar they were to obey? Many of them had promised obedience to the king when they came to America. Breaking their word was seen as a serious sin. Also, the king had protected their liberties. Now the patriots were taking them away.

In the end the nonresistant Christians put their trust in the words of the prophet Daniel in the Bible, “He removeth kings and setteth up kings” (Daniel 2:21). They patiently waited for the outcome of the war to find out who God would set up as Caesar. In the meantime they followed a pattern of strict neutrality. They refused to help either side to fight.

However, when hungry, sick, or wounded soldiers, whether patriot or redcoat, needed aid, the nonresistant Christians gave it. As a Hessian officer said, “They are the most hospitable to us.” The patriots did not understand this impartial love. They threatened men like Mennonite Christian Weaver with a whipping for feeding runaway British prisoners even though he had done the same for Continental soldiers.

Source: US Anabaptists during the Revolutionary War (excerpts from the fifth grade social studies course produced by Christian Light Publications)

ACLU’s Tiresome Arguments

I just learned about this at World Magazine’s blog. And it’s nine-day old news. I want to know why I didn’t know any sooner.

But never mind, here are the story’s lead paragraphs:

A federal appeals court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents in the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse.

The judge who wrote the opinion blasted the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the display, in language that echoed the type of criticism often directed at the organization.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich’s ruling said the ACLU brought “tiresome” arguments about the “wall of separation” between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a “reasonable person.”

That’s, like, way cool, dude!

Sorry. 😀 That’s not how I talk.

But I think I might like that judge. 🙂

I wonder who appointed him.

Does a quick Google on the subject.

Well, well. According to this, this:: Judge Suhrheinrich has served on the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, since being appointed by President Bush in 1990. He ascended to the Sixth Circuit after serving on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, following an appointment by President Reagan in 1984.

How about that.

Didn’t He Know the Risk?!

From The Washington Times this story of commitment:

A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday.

Al-Madina newspaper said secondary-school teacher Mohammad al-Harbi, who will be flogged in public, was taken to court by his colleagues and students.

He was charged with promoting a “dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer,” the newspaper said.

I wonder what this man’s testimony is.

Oh, and before anyone goes off on what the “religion of peace” does to its opponents, wait.

Remember the Crusades. Remember the Catholic-Protestant battles of not so long ago.

That said, I do believe there is a substantial spiritual and moral difference between genuine Islam and genuine Christianity.

The question for me is simple: Is my faith (and subsequent life) an accurate reflection of the Lord Jesus?