On This Day In Church History: The First Anabaptist Baptism

On January 21st, 1525 Conrad Grebel baptized George Blaurock. Blaurock then baptized the other men present including Felix Manz and Grebel. This followed the disputation in Zurich where Zwingli disputed with Grebel and Manz over the subject of baptism. Although Zwingli was unsurprisingly declared the victor in support of "infant baptism", the brethren still chose to be baptized a few days later. This would start them on a path that would lead many Anabaptists to being murdered by the hands of the state at the urging of the religious authorities.

You might wonder why you should care if you are not part of an Anabaptist heritage group like the Amish, Mennonites or Hutterites. If you are someone who cares about religious liberty, this is a critical moment in the church when a handful of men risked their lives to take the rite of baptism out of state hands. The religious liberty we cherish and that is enshrined in our Constitution can be traced in part back to this courageous act of defiance almost 500 years ago. May God raise up more men in this day with the courage to stand fast on the Word of God against those who would seek to pervert it or use it to gain worldly power.

Around The Web On #RFRA

I don't normally get especially incensed over political stuff anymore but the ludicrous response to my home state of Indiana passing a law that is substantially the same as an existing Federal law and some 30 odd state laws, including one supported by then State Senator Barack Obama who has predictably changed his tune after testing the political winds, has me feeling compelled to keep putting out decent responses to the inane responses from people who largely don't live in Indiana and wouldn't be caught dead here.

The first point to make is that when you get a coalition of academic pseudo-intellectuals, "social justice Christians", guilty leftist business leaders, the Obama administration and a mishmash of Hollywood liberals who feel qualified to speak on an issue because of a talent for pretending to be someone else, all opposing what you have done, it is a sure sign that it was the right thing to do. I am not super-interested in fighting the culture wars mostly because they have been largely counter-productive, a huge waste of resources and lead increasingly to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. I am even less interested in being scolded by people who a) haven't read the bill and/or b) couldn't find Indiana on a map with both hands. The professional class of people in this country that are offended and aggrieved over something new every day, creating ridiculous notions like "micro-aggressions" to turn any and every casual human interaction into a cause to be rallied to and a wrong to be scolded about, are a cancer in our culture. I don't use that word lightly but I do use it unapologetically and intentionally.

The uproar over Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act can be linked to the social media prompting of George Takei and that is the reason, the only reason, that this law which is essentially the same as the laws on the books of 60% of the states as well as the Federal government is getting so much attention. There is nothing quite like social media to inflame the passions of the willfully ignorant. This backlash, while predictable in retrospect, has taken the Right in this country off-guard, at least initially. Very few voices stood against the ironically labelled forces of "tolerance". Thankfully in spite of the slow start that has changed. I wanted to highlight a few for your reading pleasure.

The Daily Signal has a brief article, The True Facts About Religious Freedom Laws, that is noteworthy for a helpful graphic. It isn't an in-depth look at the issue but in this day and age a clear graphic is a useful tool in responding to the forces of religious bigotry that depend on sound-bytes and memes to make their point.

The National Review has several good articles, Is Indiana Protecting Discrimination? as well as Liberals against Religious Liberty in Indiana and The White House Doesn’t Like Indiana’s Religious-Liberty Law, but Won’t Say Why It’s Different from the One Obama Supported. It is typical that the media is completely giving a pass to Obama for yet another flip-flop. It is almost like they have an agenda or something....

Matt Walsh has a decidedly snarky essay but one worth reading, Sorry Gays, You Don’t Have The Right To Be Free From Discrimination. All businesses discriminate by virtue of price, product line-up, location, etc. Victoria's Secret discriminates in favor of women. Heck it used to be considered a virtue to be discriminating. Now the real virtue is to have no opinion or preference about anything other than what the government says or the marketers tell you.

Rod Dreher, writing for the American Conservative has a very comprehensive piece, Indiana: A Religious Liberty Bellwether.

It seems to me that the media/elite freakout over the Indiana law is a moral panic analogous to the freakout over the UVA rape case. People rushed like lemmings to endorse as true something that turned out to be a hoax because it confirmed their prejudices about Bad Classes of People. This is why so many in the media are making no pretense to be fair in their reporting and commentary on the Indiana law. As Mollie Hemingway avers, the most interesting — and most worrying — aspect of all this is that religious liberty is not considered to be important at all to very many people in this country, especially the most powerful people.

Notre Dame’s Pat Deneen wrote this weekend on Facebook that law school friends tell him of plans underway now by progressive law profs to “Bob Jones” churches and religious institutions that have policies they consider discriminatory against LGBT people. That is, they want to campaign to take away tax exempt status from all religious entities that have traditional views and practices related to homosexuality. This is the next frontier. Many churches and religious entities operate so close to the margins, budget-wise, that they will not be able to survive this.

Set aside the reality of church operating at the budget margins, a worthy topic for another day, and concentrate on the words above. The media is paying so much attention to this issue because it allows them to bash the Bad People and like so many other issues like the noted UVA "rape" farce, the "hands up, don't shoot" farce, the "bombing" of the NAACP offices in Colorado farce, etc., what is important here is the agenda driving narrative, not the truth. Let's be honest, the "media" in this country is mostly designed to push an agenda. This is a charge regularly lobbed at the evil Fox News by the left but it is at least as true for the NBC/ABC/CBS cabal along with CNN, MSNBC and NPR/PBS. What changed with the advent of Fox News and talk radio, etc., is that the monopolistic stranglehold of the leftist media was broken and they cannot forgive that. Also of note is this tweet from the Dreher article:

Any cause with the active support of Apple, NCAA, Wal-Mart and the Kochs is not a beleaguered minority, but the ruling elite.
— Patrick Deneen (@PatrickDeneen) March 29, 2015

That is exactly on the mark. This is very much the government at the state level attempting to put into place protections for religious small businesses to exercise their religious beliefs as a defense against the elites of our society in academia, entertainment, government and business. The groups he lists have a lot in common, namely that they want nothing to rock the boat and interfere with the money flow that is the lifeblood of the government, the academy, the entertainment world and the massive corporations. Ironically the American Left has placed itself firmly on the side of the most privileged and white organizations in the world.

The attempt to muzzle religious expression, and make no mistake that while evangelical Christianity is the primary target here this same law will extend to Roman Catholicism, Muslims, Jews, really anyone with any religious convictions. As many of the articles point out , these laws do not provide blanket amnesty to discriminate, they simply provide a legal framework for litigation if it arises. Of course lost in this entire discussion is that many of the existing cases across the country are pretty clearly activists intentionally trying to force a business to cater to them to make a political point.

Anyway, it is just really important that the reality of this issue gets circulated because it is turning into a witch hunt with the wealthy elites trying to one-up each other over who is more outraged.

The Enemy Of My Enemy Is Not Always My Friend

As someone who admires from afar the President of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, I was a little concerned when I saw a link to a talk he gave at Brigham Young University on the topic of religious liberty: A Clear and Present Danger: Religious Liberty, Marriage, and the Family in the Late Modern Age — An Address at Brigham Young University. Dr. Mohler is a staunch defender of Biblical orthodoxy, an unapologetic advocate for God's design in gender, a fearless champion for the doctrines of grace and many other positions I support and respect his advocacy for. But to go before the audience of Brigham Young University with anything but a call to repent and turn from their false religion? That had me concerned. I was pleasantly surprised to see this paragraph in the opening of the transcript of his talk:

I come as a Christian theologian to speak explicitly and respectfully as a Christian—a Christian who defines Christianity only within the historic creeds and confessions of the Christian church and who comes as one committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the ancient and eternal Trinitarian faith of the Christian church. I have not come as less, and you know whom you have invited. I come knowing who you are—to an institution that stands as the most powerful intellectual center of the Latter-Day Saints, the most visible academic institution of Mormonism. You know who I am and what I believe. I know who you are and what you believe. It has been my great privilege to know friendship and share conversation with leaders of the LDS church, such as Elder Tom Perry, Elder Quentin Cook, and Elder Todd Christofferson. I am thankful for the collegiality extended by President Cecil Samuelson at this great university. We do not enjoy such friendship and constructive conversation in spite of our theological differences, but in light of them. This does not eliminate the possibility of conversation. To the contrary, this kind of convictional difference at the deepest level makes for the most important kind of conversation. This is why I am so thankful for your gracious invitation.

I think that is well said. He is a Christian and speaks as a Christian who only recognizes Christianity within the historic creeds and confessions. He singles out the Trinitarian faith, something anathema to the mormon beliefs of his audience. Unlike some Christians who have gone out of their way to gloss over the insurmountable gap between the pagan polytheistic religion of mormonism and orthodox confessional Christianity, Dr. Mohler is quite clear that he speaks as a Christian to religious people that are not. I was glad to see this stance because it is critically important that as the civil religion of America dies that the church be crystal clear about who we are and what we believe in.

In spite of his gracious and clear statement above, I remain troubled by his very presence at BYU in this context. Religious liberty, Biblically defined marriage and strong families are all very important and are under daily assault. They are however, and let me be clear, not Gospel issues. In other words no matter how important they are, we are called to a very particular calling, the proclamation of the Good News of Jesus Christ, His redeeming work on the cross for propitiation of sins and His Kingdom. That is our calling and everything else is secondary. I don't for a second think that Al Mohler or other men I respect like Russell Moore are elevating religious liberty or traditional marriage to the level of the Gospel but many people may not see the distinction. Those seeking to assault marriage or silence the faithful count as their enemies evangelical Christians and mormons alongside Roman Catholics, Jews, muslims and others. In this case the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.

We are warned in Scripture to not be yoked with unbelievers ( 2 Cor 6:14 ) and that admonition goes beyond simply not marrying unbelievers. When a Christian stands in front of an audience that likely held few if any Christians our message should be obvious: repent and believe. I don't think that means that every single time we talk to an unbeliever we need to say nothing other than "Repent!" but for a Christian of the prominence of Al Mohler in a public venue like this one I am afraid that the cause of mormonism gets more of a boost than the cause of the Gospel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has become a master marketing organization and the contemporary iteration of their marketing strategy is built on shared values and "we are not that different from you" messages.  Events like this bolster their strategy.

As the days of Christendom finally come to an end, the church will find our former "friends" in the secular world will be nowhere to be found. I understand the impulse to seek alliances where we can to advance causes we feel are important. Amidst this seismic change to the religious climate we must be ever more vigilant to not lose sight of the peculiar and unique Gospel, a Gospel that leaves no room for imposter religions. Mormonism and other aberrant false religions are a far greater threat to the faith than the ACLU or activist judges creating a right to "gay marriage". My sincere hope is that Christian leaders would choose to be persecuted for the faith before we link arms with unbelievers.

Religious liberty and double standards

USA Today had a substantial story this morning about the move to ban burqas in France that is spreading around Europe as Europeans react to the burgeoning Muslim population by banning public expressions of religion (it is already illegal to wear large crosses and head scarves like the one my wife wears in public schools and certain other places in France). What concerns me (other than wondering when we will follow suit in America) is that there is a dangerous double-standard at work here.

When it comes to Islam we are all too willing to set aside our cherished beliefs about religious tolerance and freedom. Arguments that would never fly if applied to Christian groups are taken as perfectly fine when applied to Muslims. For example, what if France decided to ban the habit worn by nuns? It doesn’t cover their face but it does cover everything else. The traditional habit covers women up from head to toe, covering even the neck with only the face visible. A woman dressed as a nun could as easily smuggle explosives under the habit as a woman wearing a burqa. Why is the habit not a problem but the burqa is? It is not a matter of principle, it is a matter of prejudice. Some ask what about photo ID, how can that be accomplished? There are Christian groups like the Amish that forbid the taking of photographs and that has not led to an outbreak of Amish terrorism. There is an incredible double-standard here that is based not in fact nor in logic nor in consistency.

Case in point was the girl who ran away from her Muslim parents in Ohio and went to live with a Christian couple in Florida, Rifqa Berry. Christians were by and large very supportive of her running away but had the situation been reversed and if a girl with Christian parents had fled to a Muslim home, I can imagine that the majority of Christians would have been outraged and demanded the girl be returned to her parents, citing religious freedom and parental rights.

This is not really about women’s right or security or anything else noble sounding. It is a reaction to Islam. I understand in part why people have such a visceral reaction. Since 9/11/2001 terrorism carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam and the resulting two wars and various terror attacks since then have dominated the news. Having said that, Europe has created an atmosphere where very low birth rates and an increasingly entitled populace have led to the need to import cheap labor and that cheap labor is coming from predominately Muslim nations. The influx of adherents to Islam are changing the complexion of Europe but the only people to blame for that are Europeans themselves.

I think this whole effort is misguided. It flies in the face of the idea of a liberal democracy, singling out a specific and fairly rare religious practice. As the article points out, wearing burqas is not all that common in Europe:

The Muslim Executive of Belgium, an association of Muslims, estimates that between 30 and 100 women there wear a burqa. In France, fewer than 2,000 cover their faces, according to the Interior Ministry.

So what we have is an excessive and heavy-handed overreaction to a fairly uncommon phenomena. In other words, the solution outweighs the “problem”. As someone else quoted in the article points out, banning burqas is not going to lead to women not wearing them. They will continue to wear them and force the police to either ignore the law or arrest women or even worse it will mean that these women will simply not leave the house. Someone who is willing to wear a burqa is not going to just stop because a law says so. There are women who wear a burqa that shop in our local grocery store and they somehow manage to function in society without showing their faces.

Extremism in response to perceived extremism is a breeding ground for…even more extremism. I am no defender of Islam, a faith that leads people away from God into a false belief system that leads to eternal damnation. That is true of not just Islam but every religion not centered in faith in Jesus Christ alone, whether Islam or Buddhism or Mormonism. Nor am I a fan of the burqa. Having said that, I am also not a fan of governments telling people how to dress or how to practice their faith. It amazes me how many small government defenders of individual liberty will set those principles aside to cheer on a socialist government banning the burqa because it only impacts Muslims.

Good for Guillaume Morand

When the Swiss Voted to Ban New Minarets, This Man Built One

BUSSIGNY, Switzerland -- In November, Switzerland voted to ban the construction of new minarets, the towerlike structures that adorn mosques. A week or so later, in an apparent act of defiance, a new minaret unexpectedly sprang up here.

But the new minaret is not attached to a mosque; this small town near Geneva doesn't even have one. And it's not the work of a local Muslim outraged by Switzerland's controversial vote to ban the structures, which often are used to launch the call to prayer.

Instead, Bussigny's minaret is attached to the warehouse of a shoe store called Pomp It Up, which is part of a Swiss chain. It was erected by the chain's owner, Guillaume Morand, who fashioned it out of plastic and wood and attached it to a chimney. The new minaret, nearly 20 feet high and illuminated at night, is clearly visible from the main highway connecting Lausanne and Geneva.

"The referendum was a scandal," Mr. Morand said recently at his cavernous warehouse, near pallets piled high with shoe boxes as pop music played on an old stereo system. "I was ashamed to be Swiss. I don't have the power to do much, but I wanted to give a message of peace to Muslims."

He is not a Muslim, nor a Christian. In fact he is an atheist but finds himself aghast at the ludicrous law banning minarets in Switzerland. The gesture is described by some as “infantile” but good for this guy standing up for religious freedom. On a day when I posted an article about the first Anabaptist martyr being murdered by fellow “Christians” in Switzerland, it was nice to read about someone standing up for freedom in that nation. I wish more Christians would have been more vocal about it, one can only imagine the outcry if the Swiss had banned steeples on Christian churches.

The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience

There is a new ecumenical declaration that has just been released, The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience. It is a lengthy, sober, thoughtful and solidly reasoned call for Christians to exercise their conscience in the public square.

The Manhattan Declaration deals with three primary issues: abortion, homosexual marriage and religious liberty. Signatories include men like Dr. Moore and Dr. Mohler, Tim Keller, Chuck Colson, Timothy George and James Dobson as well as men like William Donohue of the Catholic League, several Archbishops, Anglican Primates and Orthodox leaders. It is a veritable who's who of Christian leaders.

Here is the body of the declaration:

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies; that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

So what do we think of this? Is this a sober and appropriate declaration of Christian conscience in the public sphere? Is this an ecumenical capitulation in the name of political issues? Is this an unwarranted distraction to the church from Her mission of proclaiming the Gospel? Does this declaration not go far enough?

What say you? (Please read the whole declaration first)

Thoughts here?

More on Islam and religious liberty...

PORTLAND, Ore. – A law backed by the Ku Klux Klan nearly a century ago to keep Catholics out of public schools is still on the books in Oregon, one of the last states in the nation to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms.

Both Pennsylvania and Nebraska have similar laws, which try to balance the constitutional conflict between protecting students from the establishment of religion in schools and the rights of teachers to express their beliefs through their dress.

Oregon's law, originally aimed at priest collars and nun habits, survived a legal challenge in the 1980s by a Sikh convert who wanted to wear her turban in the classroom and was recently upheld by the state's Legislature.

A Muslim teacher in Pennsylvania lost a similar challenge in 1991 to that state's even older law for the right to wear a headscarf at school. So far, it has not posed any serious legal issues in Nebraska.

You might read that and say “Good! Islam is evil and should be opposed!” I would agree in principle but not in practice. The only way to counter Islam and other false belief systems is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Using the proverbial sword of the secular government cannot change hearts. When we abdicate religious approval to the government to say “Religion A is OK, Religion B is not”, we hopelessly entangle ourselves in with an inherently godless organization that cares nothing about truth and everything about power.

The bigger issue has to do with letting the government decide what is appropriate religious practice or not. There is a long history of the state picking sides in religious issues and it normally came out badly for everyone involved. It was once criminal in three states to wear Roman Catholic collars and habits. The various Acts of Uniformity in the 16th and 17th centuries in England required Christians to use a particular liturgy and belong to a specific denomination where they had to attend weekly or face fines. Untold numbers of Christians were martyred by the state in Europe during the Reformation for refusal to baptize infants or practicing believers baptism or for failing to bow the knee to Rome. History is replete with acts of repression under the guise of religion. Ask a Jew what they think of the state having acceptable and unacceptable religions. Ask our brothers in China the same question. We get all self-righteous when our armed forces are not permitted to practice Christianity in the Middle East but feel no similar qualms about restrictions on Islam in the West.

The state deeming which religions are permitted and which are not is fine as long as your religion is in favor. It is not so swell when you find yourself in the minority. This is not at all about Islam and it is not about terrorism. There are laws aplenty against terrorism and the Constitution is clear that the right to the free exercise of religion is protected. This is about the state using religion to control people and too many Christians being willing to go along because of a hatred of Islam.

Today it is Islam and many Americans applaud. Tomorrow it is homeschoolers. Then it is Catholics. Then Protestants. Think it can't happen here? Think again. The Holocaust was only 65 years ago. Never be so naïve as to underestimate the ability of the government to use any means, any excuse to control the people.

The slippery slope of religious intolerance

More on religious tolerance and the infringement thereof in an alleged democracy...

Last week, thanks to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal government took a giant leap toward encroaching on the religious liberty of Catholics. Reuben Daniels Jr., director of the EEOC District Office in Charlotte, N.C, ruled that a small Catholic college discriminated against female employees by refusing to cover prescription contraceptives in its health insurance plan. With health-care reform looming before the country, this ruling is a bad omen for people of faith.

In 2007, eight faculty members filed a complaint against Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., claiming that the school's decision to exclude prescription contraceptives from its health-care plan was discriminatory against women. "As a Roman Catholic institution, Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church," said the college's president, William Thierfelder, at the time.

In March the commission informed the college that the investigation of its employee health insurance plan had been closed with no finding of wrongdoing. Inexplicably, the case was reopened, and now the college is charged with violating federal law. If Belmont Abbey doesn't back down, the EEOC will recommend court remedies.

You can see where this leads. If forced to provide coverage for birth control, I wouldn’t be surprised if Belmont Abbey just ended medical coverage entirely. Partly this is an issue of overindulged people in a litigious society who think they should be able to dictate to their employer the terms of their employment and have no issue with suing if they don’t get their way, a legal system equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum. However the greater issue here is the issue of religious tolerance.

Who cares you might ask? I am not a Roman Catholic, I have never heard of this school and no one I know ever has or ever will go to school there. The reason it concerns me and should concern you is that restrictions on religious liberty impact everyone and it is an awfully slippery slope. Religious liberty is not something that is reserved for Protestants. There is an awful outcry whenever the government removes a 10 Commandments monument from public lands but the silence is deafening when the afflicted group is out of favor. Many evangelicals would cry foul if this college was forced to pay for abortions but since most evangelicals don’t care about birth control, we find something else to think about. Even in places, or perhaps especially in places, where we see religious liberty being restricted by the government of a group we are nto part of we should speak up. I will defend to the end the right of a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf or a Catholic college to refuse to cover contraception in the same way I would fight for my right to tell a Muslim or Catholic the Good News of Jesus Christ. It is disingenuous to cry “Persecution” over every perceived affront to Christmas but then turn a blind eye when the impacted party is a religion you don’t subscribe to.

There are many people who see my wife covering her head and think she is being repressed, including people who are Christians. There are many people, including some in the church, who think that we are unqualified to educate our own kids. As people increasingly educate their own children and with the nearly double child-bearing rate of homeschooling families, as public schools become emptier, revenue goes down and teachers need employment, you can be sure that there are many people who will look greedily at the millions of homeschoolers and try to find a way to force them back to the schools. If you think that in an increasingly secular world there are not forces who would like to expunge all religious expression, including private religious instruction of children by their own family, you are dangerously naïve. Government encroachment on religious liberty will not stop with small Catholic colleges or Muslim garments.

This is why we need as Christians to be concerned when religious liberties are being infringed. We may not be Muslim or Catholic or mormon or Hindu, but we all live under the specter of government infringement on the practice of our faith. I despise Islam as I do every other religion that leads people away from Christ, but I no more want the government to tell Muslim women they cannot dress as they choose than I do the government telling me what we can teach in our church. God is sovereign and no government can stop the Gospel from being proclaimed. That is not my concern. However, as a Christian who is an American citizen, I (and you) have a Constitutional right to practice our religion or not practice any religion without government intrusion. That right is being chipped away here and abroad. Today it is headscarves in France and mandated contraception coverage in Catholic colleges. Tomorrow it could be tax funded abortions and outlawing the preaching of the Gospel. We shouldn’t see religious liberty as a buffet where we pick and choose what liberties we like and which ones we leave on the buffet line.

I don’t often agree with Muslims

But I again find myself sympathetic with Muslim women in France. The latest case involves a woman being banned from a public pool because she was wearing a modest, head to toe bathing suit that allows her to swim without violating the tenets of Islam, or at least as some Muslims interpret the laws of Islam.

PARIS – A Muslim woman garbed in a head-to-toe swimsuit — dubbed a "burquini" — may have opened a new chapter in France's tussle between religious practices and its stern secular code.

Officials insisted Wednesday they banned the woman's use of the Islam-friendly suit at a local pool because of France's pool hygiene standards — not out of hostility to overtly Muslim garb.

Under the policy, swimmers are not allowed in pools with baggy clothing, including surfer-style shorts. Only figure-hugging suits are permitted.

The reason is completely ridiculous. The suit might be unsanitary? In a pool full of chlorinated water?

An official in charge of swimming pools for the Emerainville region, Daniel Guillaume, said the refusal to allow the local woman to swim in her "burquini" had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with public health standards.

"These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers," Guillaume said in a telephone interview.

"We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked," he said.

Which is more unsanitary? A woman in a tiny bikini that covers virtually none of her body or a woman in a full length suit? A fat, hairy French dude in a speedo or a modestly dressed woman in full-length swimwear? Swimsuits very similar to this were common in the not too distant history of Western civilization. It is hardly a sign of "progress" that men and women have been racing to see how small suits can be without completely uncovering the wearer.

She is not “fully clothed”, jumping into the pool in jeans and a sweatshirt. This is a specifically designed outfit for swimming. The only difference is that it leaves some of her body covered. Even most modern commonly available one-piece bathing suits are pretty revealing. When you get into two piece suits, in many cases there is a negligible difference between wearing a swimming suit or wearing nothing but underwear. I would rather see women at a pool dressed in this sort of suit than seeing women dressed in suits that are immodest and, ahem, inappropriate for their body type.

The law in France basically states that if you want to swim in a public pool, you have to immodestly expose yourself (“Only figure-hugging suits are permitted”). We could certainly all do with more modest dress in the world instead of banning women who want to swim without stripping down. As much as I think Islam is a religion that condemns people, I also dislike seeing Western democracies imposing punitive rules that are aimed at religious freedom. As if I needed another reason to dislike France.

First they came for the burqas

In the news today…

Sarkozy Says Burqas 'Not Welcome' in France

PARIS -- President Nicolas Sarkozy lashed out Monday at the practice of wearing the Muslim burqa, insisting the full-body religious gown is a sign of the "debasement" of women and that it won't be welcome in France.

The French leader expressed support for a recent call by dozens of legislators to create a parliamentary commission to study a small but growing trend of wearing the full-body garment in France.

In the first presidential address in 136 years to a joint session of France's two houses of Parliament, Mr. Sarkozy laid out his support for a ban even before the panel has been approved -- braving critics who fear the issue is a marginal one and could stigmatize Muslims in France.

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Mr. Sarkozy said to extended applause in a speech at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

This is flat out dangerous. France is a modern nation, in existence for hundreds of years. This seems so out of place in a free democracy. It also makes me think of my wife. She covers her head in public. Will that be outlawed? Will headcoverings have to go underground? It seems a bit of a leap but that is how this sort of thing starts. Grab the easiest mark and then incrementally make changes. I am sure many people (including many in the church) look at the practice of Christian women covering their heads and see it as oppressive even though headcovering is expressly commanded in the Bible and was the practice among Christians for centuries. Even though my wife covers her head voluntarily, I can imagine the argument that would say she is conditioned to do so or secretly forced by the oppressive patriarchy of Christianity and that banning headcoverings is for her own good even if she doesn’t realize it.

I don’t care for the wearing of burqas. On the other hand, it makes me more than a bit uneasy that a Western democracy is contemplating legislation to ban the wearing of a garment, especially one singled out because of religious implications. They have already banned some attire in France…

France enacted a law in 2004 banning the Islamic headscarf and other conspicuous religious symbols from public schools, sparking fierce debate at home and abroad.

Granted France is not America (in that we don’t generally allow the Germans to invade our country periodically) but there are many Americans who look across the pond to Europe and see what they wish America would become. Are we headed for a future where there is rampant, state approved immorality but where outward expressions of religious belief are banned? That seems alarmist but look at the pace of societal collapse we are experiencing now. There are plenty of busybodies who would applaud France for banning burqas and would like to see the same thing here.

Happy Birthday James Madison!

Today is the birthday of James Madison (March 16, 1751), the fourth President of the United States. (Little known fact, we named our second daughter after James Madison). Madison is kind of a forgotten guy in American history even though his impact on much of our nation’s identity was enormous. Madison had such an influence over the drafting of the U.S. Constitution that he is nicknamed “The Father of the Constitution” and his influence is not merely over the actual drafting of the Constitution but also in the underlying theory and philosophy of our system of government. His work “The Federalist Papers”, co-authored along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, is one of the most important formative documents of our nation and is chock full of wisdom. One of my favorite lines is from the Federalist #51 “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”. Much as I dislike and distrust government, I also recognize that we are sinful men being governed by sinful men and as such some restrictions and laws are necessary. We can and should debate the scope and nature of the power of the government to rule the people and vice versa, but what is apparent from human nature is that radical libertarianism taken to its logical extreme is untenable in a society that dwells in a post-Genesis 3 world. The Constitution is designed to pit “ambition against ambition”, using mankind’s natural sinful self-interest to prevent the government from concentrating excessive power in any branch of the government. This “separation of powers” and system of “checks and balances” has worked well for most of our history, but as courts become more and more boldly activist, wantonly enacting de facto legislation from the bench, the efficacy of our system is teetering on the brink.

One area that perhaps more than others is a hallmark of Madison’s influence on our government is in the area of religious liberty (See: Why I'm Celebrating Madison's Birthday). Religious liberty is at its core a simple concept, i.e. people should be able to worship or not as they see fit without governmental restriction or approbation. Unfortunately the emotionally charged nature of religious expression has made it fodder for all manner of foolishness.

The idea of the separation of church and state, although not specifically appearing anywhere in the Constitution, has been taken to an ugly and unintended extreme by some to mean that any religious expression in the public square is of necessity a violation of the Constitution. The idea of freedom of religion has been perverted to mean a freedom from religion. The idea that we should not permit prayer before Inaugurations, or that the Ten Commandments should be removed from public soil when they are inarguably one of the foundational documents upon which our system of laws and governance is founded are ludicrous on their face and a demonstration of political ideology run amok at the expense of history and truth.

In an equally erroneous overreaction, some have called for an integration of religion into the public square that is also unwarranted and unwise. While I understand President Bush’s call for an Office of Faith Based Initiatives and think it was well-meaning, it ultimately was a bad idea. Even worse is the call for a return to school prayer. I really don’t think we need to link in our kids minds the school, government and prayer. I don’t believe that a child who wished to pray silently to themselves is going to be prevented from doing so, and I really don’t think parents want a Christian/Mormon/Buddhist/Muslim/atheist teacher leading kids in prayer. If you want your kids to pray during the day, keep them home, teach them yourself and lead them in prayer yourself.

It is in the middle of this issue that we discover where the intent was aimed and where the greatest good is found. I have no interest in state sponsored religion, or even a church and state partnership. That is one of the reasons I am concerned with the favorable tax treatments granted to churches and employees of religious organizations. While it seems innocent enough now, I can see it being a wedge issue and a stick to be used later on. Can the days when those tax exemptions are held hostage for concessions from religious organizations be far off? Look at the way the society is headed with an ever increasing dependence on government and tell me I am wrong. I also have no tolerance for those who would expunge religious expression in the public square. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religious expression, free from compulsion on the one hand and repression from the government on the other. As Americans who enjoy the freedom to worship as we choose or not to worship at all, we owe a debt of gratitude to President Madison for his foresight on this issue.

Happy Birthday!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

From the New York Times this morning (ugh, I feel dirty even typing that name). Barack has made another gaffe (which is becoming more and more common as the luster wears off and people start to examine what he is saying), this time regarding his plans for reaching out to faith based organizations with a golden calf.

On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.

First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.

Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.

While Mr. Obama acknowledged President Bush’s promise to “rally the armies of compassion” through such an initiative, he maintained that the promise had gone unfulfilled because of too little financing and too much partisanship — and that he, Barack Obama, would not only carry out but also expand what Mr. Bush had pledged.

He was two-thirds of the way through his remarks when he inserted the six words with the potential to put his whole effort at risk. Speaking “as someone who used to teach constitutional law,” he spelled out “a few basic principles” to reassure listeners that such partnerships between religious groups and the government would not endanger the separation of church and state.

“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”

That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.

The intense reaction on both sides was pretty predictable, but some people offered more analytic reactions. They welcomed Mr. Obama’s stance, yet made it clear that those six words pointed to deeper questions about religious freedom that could very well seal the fate not only of any new and potentially improved partnerships between government and religious groups but also even those partnerships that, in reality, had been operating for decades.

Religious groups that know the law have long agreed that federal money cannot be used for proselytizing or discriminating against beneficiaries. But they have never agreed that taking religious considerations into account in hiring personnel — certainly for top positions if not for all staffing — should be considered discrimination. And they point to the religious exemption in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislative and Supreme Court decisions to back this assertion.

There it is, in a future Obamanation: he wants to expand the partnership between religious groups and the Federal government, but if you take any monetary support from the gubmint you cannot discriminate in any way, even if that requires you to hire people who oppose your identifying religious tenets. I am a banker, so I know this for certain: money always comes with strings attached. People come in to the bank and joke about me giving them a million dollars. I always tell them they can have as much money as they want as long as the get approved for the loan and sign some papers. I thought when President Bush first proposed the office of faith based services or whatever it is called that it sounded like a great idea. But that was naive and kneejerk on my behalf.

The reality is that the First Amendment is more about protecting religious groups and expression from meddling by the government, not banning all form of religious expression in any public forum. When the government starts funneling money with strings and qualifiers attached, the spirit of the Amendment is violated. Like private universities, once you start taking money from the government, you lose your ability to make decisions for yourself. It is very tempting, the idea of all of that money from the government. Sure there are some restrictions, but think of all the good you can do! But that means that Jewish groups may have to hire Baptists. Pentecostals may have to hire Catholics. Answers in Genesis may have to hire atheists. Not just people who are neutral on a key stance, but actively opposed to that tenet. I have worked places before, especially in financial services, where some employees were vehemently opposed to the idea of capitalism and boy they were not great employees.

Faith based organizations of all stripes ought not to be fooled by the Trojan Horse of government partnerships. Any government, especially one run by a far Left leader like Obama, is sure to promise a lot, deliver a little and compromise the message. Better to be tight on money and true to your principles.

More on public education's intrusion in religious life


In an ironic story in the Toledo Blade, the ACLU is threatening the school district in Findlay, Ohio because it is promoting religious indoctrination by Christian radicals! Well, not really. What they are really all riled up about is the school permitting students to leave school grounds for a few minutes, go onto a public sidewalk and get a Bible from the Gideons. Note that the Gideons are not on school grounds and kids are not required to leave to get them. No instruction in the Bible takes place:


FINDLAY - Findlay City Schools got a friendly but stern warning yesterday from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio: It's not legal to let children out of school to get free New Testaments.

In March, fifth graders at the district's five elementary schools were permitted to walk off school grounds during the school day to receive a New Testament from Gideons International.

The ACLU said that while the Gideons have a right to distribute their materials on public property, the public schools cannot sacrifice class time to help them in their religious mission.

"By agreeing to the Gideons' request, pulling them out of class, and walking them over to receive these Bibles, the school crossed the line," said Carrie Davis, staff attorney with ACLU of Ohio.

She sent a letter to Superintendent Dean Wittwer asking that he "immediately stop school employees from escorting students to visit missionaries during school hours."


I love the "stern warning" part. The ACLU, and in cooperation much of the media, has appointed itself as watchdogs of our society and is treated almost like a law enforcement agency, one not ruled by any sort of democratic process and unaccountable to anyone. I must have missed that rule in the Constitution, or that piece of legislation deputizing the ACLU as the arbiter of what does or does not pass Constitutional muster. I thought that was the role of the Supreme Court. Silly me! They even have a briefing paper with the banner "Guardians of Freedom". There is perhaps no group of liberals, a generally self-important group if ever there was one, that is more self-important than the ACLU.


What probably has the ACLU all riled up is this comment by Chris Brooks, one of the principals:


Chris Brooks, principal of Bigelow Hill Elementary School in Findlay, said for years the Gideons have distributed to students what they call a "pocket testament," a palm-sized booklet that contains the New Testament, Proverbs, and Psalms. He said he doesn't have a problem with it.

"To me, you've got to look at the context of the community," Mr. Brooks said. "This is a Christian community. I'm not saying everybody is, but that's where Findlay is."


That might raise their ire just a bit. The ACLU then passes muster on the Constitution again, and throws a quick threat out there


The ACLU said that's not the point.

Ms. Davis said courts across the country have consistently held that it's unconstitutional for schools to have activities like this during the school day.

"For decades, courts have said the schools cannot be doing this," she said. "They say it's the parents' right to control their children's religious upbringing, not the schools."
....
While the letter from the ACLU said the organization was "prepared to explore other options, including legal action" if the district didn't address the issue, Ms. Davis said nothing is planned at this point.

"Right now, the ball is in their court," she said. "We're waiting to hear from the school district in terms of their response to this and whether they intend to consider policy changes" or whether to allow this in the future.


In other words: Do what we say or we bring an expensive lawsuit and bankrupt the school (all in the name of freedom of course) ! That really takes the cake. Parents are allowed to control their children's religious upbringing, but the law in Ohio requires kids to attend public schools unless you jump through a bunch of hoops (Ohio has some pretty restrictive laws regarding homeschool), and in that public school a decidedly anti-religious viewpoint is taught. So you can teach your kids however you want, once the school is done teaching them what it wants. This is just a further example of mandatory, compulsory public education forcing a religious viewpoint by actively promoting an anti-religious message and pushing the religion of secular humanism in it's place. The ACLU and the acolytes of secular humanism, in their quest to quash religious dissent and freedom, go so far as to threaten a small Ohio school because the school (which is supposed to be a place of learning, I thought) is allowing students a couple of minutes of school time (in a school bought and paid for by their parents) to leave school grounds to get a Bible. The truth is that it is the radical secular Left that are the religiously intolerant and closed minded among us.