The War Against the 
Boy Scouts 
2 
he Faith-Based Debate 
12 
eedom in Times of Fear 
16 
ief and Conduct in Canada 
24 
A Magazine of 
Religious Freedom 
Vol. 96, No. 6 
November/December 
2001 
By 
JOHN C. 
EASTMAN 
0
n June 28, 2000, the last day of that year's term, the Supreme Court of the 
United States ruled (by the narrowest of margins) that the Boy Scouts has a con-
stitutionally protected right, as a private association, to exclude from the ranks of its adult 
leadership an avowed homosexual. This, according to the Court, because the Boy Scouts 
theWa.r ainst the 
Boy 
couts 
asserted that part of the organization's purpose is to teach boys to be 
morally straight," a phrase that, according to the Boy Scouts, includes 
the view that homosexual conduct, like adultery or premarital sex, is immoral. 4 The 
Supreme Court took this important case because the Supreme Court of New Jersey had 
rejected the Boy Scouts' constitutional claims, holding that the Boy Scouts' First 
Amendment freedoms of speech and expressive association were not infringed because 
the Boy Scouts did not really have a position about homosexual conduct. In an opinion 
that can only be called Orwellian, the New Jersey court had refused to accept that the Boy 
Scouts actually believes that homosexual conduct is immoral and therefore incompati-
ble with the virtues the organization seeks to foster. The New Jersey Supreme Court held 
that "the words 'morally straight' and 'clean' do not, on their face, express anything about 
sexuality, much less that homosexuality, in particular, is immoral!' 
John C. Eastman is associate professor, Chapman University School of Law, Orange, California, and 
director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Claremont, California. 
Eastman, together with former U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, filed an amicus curiae brief in the 
Supreme Court of the United States in support of the Boy Scouts in Boy Scouts v. James Dale, 120 
S.C.T. 2446 (2001). Eastman is also an Eagle Scout who began his Scouting career with the Cub Scout 
pack affiliated with Troop 73, Matawan, New Jersey, the troop at issue in the Dale case. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 3 
Of course, anyone who has been involved 
with the Boy Scouts knows just how absurd the 
New Jersey Supreme Court's statement was. 
Numerous trial courts had recognized the obvi-
ous clarity and consistency of the Boy Scouts' 
position. Unlike the New Jersey Supreme Court 
they had actually considered evidence before 
reaching a factual determination. For example, a 
California trial court found, in a similar case, 
"that sexual morality is addressed in the Boy 
Scout Oath and Law under the rubric of 'morally 
straight' and `clean"'; "that the Boy Scouts of 
America as an organization has taken a consis-
tent position that homosexuality is immoral and 
incompatible with the Boy Scout Oath and 
Law"; and that "this is the view that is commu-
nicated whenever the issue comes up." 
For nearly a century the Boy Scouts has been 
singularly successful in its mission of instilling in 
young boys a sense of their moral obligations to 
God, country, and family. Such moral training 
was thought by the Founders to be essential in a 
republican form of government. The Declaration 
of Rights affixed to the beginning of the Virginia 
Constitution of 1776, for example, provides "that 
no free government, or the blessings of liberty, 
can be preserved to any people, but by a firm 
adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, 
frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence 
to fundamental principles?' The Massachusetts 
Constitution of 1780 echoes the sentiment: "The 
happiness of a people, and the good order and 
preservation of civil government, essentially 
depend upon piety, religion, and morality." And 
The Boy 
of Am 
Scouts oj �
erica, as an institutit 
wrong, just as it believes that adultery and premariti 
The New Jersey Supreme Court rested its 
opinion in part upon the claim, grounded in 
moral relativism, that the Boy Scouts itself 
rejects the idea that there is any objective basis 
on which to make claims about the morality or 
immorality of homosexual conduct, or anything 
else, for that matter. According to that court: 
"Although one of GSA's stated purposes is to 
encourage members' \ethical development, BSA 
does not endorse any specific set of moral 
beliefs. Instead, 'moral fitness' is deemed an 
individual choice?' The New Jersey court found 
support for this astonishing conclusion in the 
following passage from the Boy Scouts' 
Scoutmaster Handbook: "Morality . . . concerns 
the 'principles of right and wrong' in our behav-
ior, and 'what is sanctioned by our conscience or 
ethical judgment:" 
The New Jersey court's reading ignores the 
distinction between "good conscience?' on the 
one hand (to which the passage clearly refers), 
and "bad conscience" and "unconscionable" con-
duct, on the other. The New Jersey court's read-
ing of the Boy Scouts' code, therefore, cannot be 
more wrong, nor more at odds with the idea of 
virtue regarded by our nation's founders as a nec-
essary prerequisite of republican government. 
the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 went even 
further, asserting that "laws for the encourage-
ment of virtue, and prevention of vice and 
immorality, shall be made and constantly kept in 
force, and provision shall be made for their due 
execution?' 
But perhaps the clearest example of the 
Founders' views was penned by James Madison, 
writing as Publius in the fifty-fifth number of 
The Federalist: "Republican government presup-
poses the existence of [virtue] in a higher degree 
than any other form. Were [people as depraved 
as some opponents of the Constitution say they 
are], the inference would be that there is not suf-
ficient virtue among men for self-government; 
and that nothing less than the chains of despo-
tism can restrain them from destroying and 
devouring one another?' In short, the Founders 
viewed a virtuous citizenry as an essential pre-
condition of republican self-government. 
The Founders were also fully cognizant of 
the fact that virtue must be continually fostered 
in order for republican institutions, once estab-
lished, to survive. Most of the leading Founders, 
therefore, turned their attention at one time or 
another to education. Perhaps the best exam-
ple, but by no means the only one, of this senti- 
4 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
ment is expressed in the Northwest Ordinance, 
adopted by the first Congress for the govern-
ment of the territories: "Religion, morality, and 
knowledge, being necessary to good govern-
ment and the happiness of mankind, schools 
and the means of education shall forever be 
encouraged?' The Massachusetts Constitution 
of 1780 contained a similar sentiment: 
"Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, dif-
fused generally among the body of the people 
[are] necessary for the preservation of their 
rights and liberties." 
Moreover, the Founders believed that the 
task of fostering moral excellence in the citi-
zenry was intimately tied to religion. President 
George Washington noted in his Farewell 
Address, for example, that "reason and experi- 
?heves that homosexuality is 
ex are wrong. 
ence both forbid us to expect that national 
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious 
principle:' Another prominent Founder, 
Benjamin Rush, of Pennsylvania, was even more 
stark in his assessment: "Where there is no reli-
gion, there will be no morals:' 
Today much of the moral education thought 
so essential by our Founders is no longer pro-
vided in the public schools. As a result, the teach-
ing of morality and virtue—thought so necessary 
to our republican form of government—is left 
largely to private associations, primarily churches 
and groups such as the Boy Scouts. 
It is fortuitous, then, that the Founders did not 
rely on public institutions alone to foster a virtu-
ous citizenry, but rather encouraged the develop-
ment of private associations that, like the Boy 
Scouts, were devoted to the development of moral 
character. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed 
more than a century and a half ago in his insight-
ful work, Democracy in America, "[the intellectual 
and moral associations in America] are as neces-
sary as the [political and industrial associations] 
to the American people, perhaps more so." 
The Boy Scouts has always exemplified—and 
to many still exemplifies—that which is honor-
able, decent, and right. As the Supreme Court 
of Kansas recently recognized, the Boy Scouts 
"tends to conserve the moral, intellectual, and 
physical life of the coming generation:' The 
organization seeks to instill in the coming gen-
eration a key element of what our Founders 
thought necessary to republican self-govern-
ment, namely, the ability for each individual to 
govern himself morally and to control the baser 
passions of his human nature. 
The Boy Scouts of America, as an institution, 
believes that homosexuality is wrong, just as it 
believes that adultery and premarital sex are 
wrong. It exists, in part, to foster those beliefs 
among the boys whose parents involve them in 
scouting and to teach boys respect for family as 
the cornerstone of civilized society. Its mission 
in this regard is consistent with the teachings of 
most major religions and in accord 
with the law of most civilized peo-
ples throughout history. The Boy 
Scouts has been immensely success-
ful as an organization in no small 
measure because it has remained 
true to the moral teachings that 
have shaped its purpose from its 
beginning nearly a century ago. It 
seeks to instill in the next generation 
of our citizenry the kind of moral 
virtue that our Founders thought so essential to 
the perpetuation of our republican institutions 
and ultimately our freedom. 
The attack on the Boy Scouts is grounded in 
the claim that their position on homosexuality 
is nothing but a bigoted, homophobic relic of 
the past. The cultural elites who launched this 
assault have essentially redefined our under-
standing of virtue or, worse, claimed that there 
is no such thing as virtue. For two centuries, 
though, the people of this nation and their 
courts have had little difficulty recognizing the 
meaning of the term virtue taught by the Boy 
Scouts, as well as its opposite—at least in non-
marginal cases. Certain actions, for example, 
have long been held to be malum in se—wrong-
ful in and of themselves. In the 1878 case of 
Reynolds v. United States, for example, the 
Supreme Court upheld a congressional prohibi- 
tion of polygamy in the Utah territory, describ-
ing polygamy as an "offence against society?' 
More recently, in the 1974 court-martial case of 
Parker v. Levy, Justice Harry Blackmun (ironi-
cally, coming from the author of the landmark 
decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade) wrote 
that some actions, such as "engaging in sexual 
acts with a chicken, or window peeping in a 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 5 
trailer park, or cheating while calling bingo 
numbers' were so contrary to "fundamental 
concepts of right and wrong" that they could be 
punished as "conduct unbecoming an officer 
and a gentleman" even if they were not specifi-
cally prohibited by the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice. And in the 1991 nude dancing 
case, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., the Court held 
that "Public nudity was considered an act 
malum in se." As Justice Antonin Scalia elabo-
rated: "Our society prohibits, and all human 
societies have prohibited, certain activities not 
because they harm others but because they are 
considered, in the traditional phrase, 'contra 
bonos mores,' i.e., immoral. In American society, 
such prohibitions have included, for example, 
sadomasochism, cockfighting, bestiality, sui-
cide, drug use, prostitution, and sodomy." 
Certainly homosexual conduct has for cen-
turies been included in the list of acts generally 
deemed malum in se. Indeed, the view that 
homosexuality is immoral is still supported by 
criminal prohibitions against sodomy in many 
states and in the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice. 
While it may be true, as Justice Blackmun 
further noted in Parker v. Levy, that "relativistic 
notions of right and wrong, or situation ethics, 
as some call it, have achieved in recent times a 
disturbingly high level of prominence in this 
country . . . as a justification of conduct that 
persons would normally eschew as immoral and 
even illegal," the Supreme Court's decision 
demonstrates that we have not yet reached the 
day when the law is allowed to silence those who 
think otherwise. 
At least for now. Unfortunately, the Supreme 
Court's decision in June 2000 has not abated the 
attack on the Boy Scouts one ounce. From one 
end of the country to the other, local govern-
ments are being lobbied and lawsuits are being 
filed to bar the Boy Scouts from using public 
schools and public parks because the organiza-
tion "discriminates" against homosexuals, or 
because it "discriminates" against atheists by 
requiring its members to acknowledge their 
duty to God. Major corporations and charita-
ble institutions such as the United Way are 
being encouraged (or pressured) to sever their 
financial support of the Boy Scouts. All this 
because the Boy Scouts dares to insist that there 
is an understanding of moral virtue, shared by 
our nation's founders, that is rooted in our 
God-given human nature and therefore 
immutable. 
Two avenues of response are open to us. We 
can insist that our public institutions adopt a 
policy of neutrality toward the Boy Scouts, let-
ting the Boy Scouts have the same access to pub-
lic schools and public parks that other organi-
zations have. This is, in many ways, the easier 
response, but it is a response ultimately doomed 
to fail, for it essentially accepts the moral rela-
tivism upon which the assault on the Boy 
Scouts is grounded. It is a response that makes 
it impossible for a local school to open its doors 
to the Boy Scouts without also opening them to 
gay and lesbian clubs, to neo-Nazi clubs, or to 
any other organization that would undermine 
the kind of moral virtue that the Boy Scouts 
seeks to foster. 
Alternatively, we can insist that our public 
institutions fully embrace organizations such as 
the Boy Scouts and, more important, the idea of 
moral virtue that they, and our nation's founders, 
champion. This response, of course, requires 
that we be "judgmental," even "discriminating," 
in our views of acceptable behavior. But to bor-
row again from Justice Blackmun's concurring 
opinion in Parker. "What is at issue here are con-
cepts of 'right' and 'wrong." If we truly believe, 
as Justice Blackmun stated in Parker, that "times 
have not changed in the area of moral precepts," 
that "fundamental concepts of right and wrong 
are the same now as they [ever] were," we will 
choose this latter course. If our nation's founders 
were correct in their understanding that only a 
virtuous people were capable of self-government 
(and I think they were), nothing less than the 
perpetuation of our republican institutions and 
ultimately our freedom is at stake. 
The challenge to the Boy Scouts' vision of 
morality has several aspects. Is it indeed a public 
institution that should be bound by civil regula-
tions? Does the money trail of public support 
obligate it to conform to regulations and laws 
that may offend its sense of morality? Can it 
really expect to have the same exemptions 
granted to churches, which often hold views 
similar to those of the Scouts? There is good 
cause to see this organization as a victim of 
aggressive action to marginalize its moral world-
view. There is a very real danger too in invoking 
some sort of moral superstate ideal. The United 
States was founded on moral assumptions, but 
the republic was consciously constructed to keep 
the state out of the morality issue. How to 
defend the rights of beleaguered groups like the 
Scouts and keep the state from acting as moral 
dictator is the challenge. 
6 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
BRIEFS 
The Play's the Thing 
Mormon Christina Axson-Flynn, a drama 
student at the University of Utah, objected to 
profanity in a required script, claiming viola-
tion of her religious beliefs. In dismissing her 
claim U.S. District Judge Tena Campbell 
ruled August 3 that the words were part of a 
curriculum that took no position on religion 
and required only as an academic exercise. 
"You can't have a society in which everything 
you disagree with is in violation of your con-
stitutional rights," said Alain Balmanno, an 
assistant Utah attorney general, who repre-
sented the school. 
—The Associated Press 
State Punishes Parents for their Discipline 
Canadians were not sure what to make of 
an Elian-like raid by social workers and police 
on members of a Mennonite sect which had 
refused to promise that they would not use 
rods or switches to discipline their children, 
saying such methods are sanctioned by the 
Bible. Seven children were dragged screaming 
from their Aylmer, Ontario, home. 
Within two weeks more than 100 mothers 
and children from the Mennonite Church of 
God sect in Aylmer had fled to the United 
States in fear of similar state action. Three 
weeks later the seven children were back in 
their own home under an interim arrange-
ment with the family court, where the parents 
will spare the rod while the matter is decided. 
—The Wall Street Journal, August 17, 2001. 
Don't Hide Jesus 
Back in 1998 a group called Freedom 
From Religion sued to have a 15-foot tall 
statue of Jesus removed from a public park 
in Marshfield,Wisconsin. The suit was dis-
missed when the city sold the statue to a pri-
vate landowner. 
On February 4, 2000, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered the 
city to take steps to differentiate between city 
property and the private property where the 
statue sits. As a result the city erected a low 
wrought iron fence and a sign indicating the 
private property. Not enough for the Freedom 
From Religion Foundation, which sought to 
force erection of a 10- foot high concrete wall 
to make the statue invisible to passersby. 
Commonsense won out with a May 9 rul-
ing by U.S. District Court Judge John Shabaz 
that "visual separation" was not required. He 
accepted as adequate a city proposal for a 4-
foot high wrought iron fence and a "private 
park" sign. 
—The American Center for Law and Justice, 
May 10, 2000. 
Changing Opinion! 
This item might well illustrate how 
changes in public opinion can quickly over-
take contentious issues. On August 23 of 
this year, the Collier County, Florida, school 
board voted 3-1 not to hang posters bearing 
the national motto, "In God We Trust." Anne 
Goodnight, the board chairwoman, said 
that "The schools and education need to 
remain neutral." 
The sole vote for the posters, Anne Abbott 
said "If we look at it as history, then the law 
says it can be posted in public schools." 
—Crosswalk.com news service, August 30, 
2001. 
A Millennium for Hungary 
On August 20 this year Hungary con-
cluded 20 months of festivities to mark 1,000 
years since King Stephen introduced 
Christianity. Those 1,000 years included lost 
wars and revolutions, as well as the 1956 
anti-Communist uprising. Artifacts included 
King stephen's crown, a gift from Pope 
Silvester 2 in the year 1,000, and the king's 
preserved right hand. Clergy carried the hand 
through the streets in celebration. Some 
Protestant leaders criticized the 
ceremony—which, apart from resonating 
poorly in a world appalled by amputations in 
Taliban justice and Sierra Leone terrorism, 
harks back to a supposedly forsaken past of 
relics and superstition. 
—http://www.assist-ministries.com 
Going, Going, Clone 
More than just the subject of sci-fi movies 
and parlor talk, human cloning has the 
potential to irrevocably change the way soci-
ety looks at human life and the value it 
places upon the individual. While the debate 
is just beginning, two European 
countries—Germany and France—have called 
on the United Nations to negotiate a global 
treaty banning human cloning. 
A Catholic Register article of August 26, 
quoted Vatican Cardinal Ratzinger as com-
paring the development of cloning with the 
horrible intentions of Adolf Hitler. A moral 
and free society should look long and hard at 
the implications of this scientific "advance." 
Oops! A news item in our last issue used 
the word SNAFU. While common usage of 
the word is benign, some readers might have 
been offended at the original expression 
behind this acronym. We did not intend that 
message, and apologize if offense was taken. 
ILLUSTRATION BY RALPH BUTLER �
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 7 
At 
5:30 a.m., January 23, 2001, SWAT 
police forced Pontiac, Michigan, homeless shel- 
ter residents from their beds into the wintry darkness. 
Thirty-two residents were arrested on misdemeanor charges, then 
shackled, handcuffed, and transported to jurisdictions throughout 
Michigan. Police even handcuffed a 6-year-old boy. For the first time in United 
States history, police had raided' a church-based homeless shelter.2 + Operating 
from downtown Pontiac, the county seat, Grace Centers of Hope, previously called Pontiac 
Rescue Mission, has served Oakland County, Michigan, since 1942. Grace Centers of Hope began 
as a safe place for homeless persons to sleep, and now also offers one-year substance abuse treatment, 
complemented by a full range of life management training, counseling, and education, plus day care for 
shelter children. The homeless shelter houses 150 persons nearly every night, with separate residences for 
men and women/children. Grace Centers of Hope accepts no government funding.' + Thirteen years 
ago the shelter's administration invited Pontiac police to review shelter resident rosters. They then told the 
homeless community that Pontiac Rescue Mission/Grace Centers of Hope would prove a poor hiding place 
for persons evading the consequences of criminal action. As a result the shelter formed a close working 
relationship with Pontiac police. A police officer, specially detailed to the shelter, checked its rosters each 
week. "Grace Centers of Hope is not a hideout for criminals," avers Pastor Kent W. Clark, chief operating 
officer. "It is, instead, a place where people get their lives back through the gospel of Jesus Christ."' 
Carol June Hooker is a freelance author living in Landover Hills, Maryland. 
X' X NW W WWWWW X NW WU NW �NNNWNXIC �NNW NN X 
RAIDING 
T.CC 
By 
CAROL JUNE HOOKER 
ILLUSTRATION BY TOMOKO WATANABE �
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 9 
This year however, the relationship changed. On 
January 9 Detective Carpenter, the Pontiac police officer 
assigned to Grace Centers of Hope, requested from Pastor 
Clark a list of everyone staying at the shelter, saying, "My 
superiors want it." He sent the list within 24 hours. Then 
on January 19 an anonymous male telephoned the shelter to 
say that "Grace Center of Hope is going to be raided in a 
smear campaign to embarrass you locally and nationally." 
He suggested that he had overhead a conversation in which 
this was discussed. 
Pastor Clark contacted the office of Oakland County 
prosecutor David Gorcyca to ask whether a warrant 
had been issued for police action against Grace 
Centers of Hope. He learned that Prosecutor 
Gorcyca was in Washington, D.C., for the inau-
guration of President George W. Bush. 
Prosecutor Gorcyca's office telephoned 
Pastor Clark on Monday, January 22, to 
confirm the police raid had been called 
off, stating a police officer would call 
Pastor Clark that same day to discuss 
why the raid had been planned. At 
about 4:30 p.m. Pontiac chief of police 
Larry Miracle telephoned Pastor Clark. 
"Come to meet me in my office tomor-
row at 9:30 a.m.," he said. Pastor 
Clark countered, "Meet me tonight—
what is happening?" The telephone 
call ended.' 
The next day, shortly after 5 a.m., 
30 black-suited police wearing protec-
tive vests arrived at Grace Centers of 
Hope. Officers took mothers away 
from their children. One 6-year-old 
boy had just been reunited with his 
mother. When he cried and struggled, 
he was handcuffed. When women res-
idents sang and prayed aloud, police 
forced them to stop. Warrants were not 
served. Miranda rights were not read. 
All but one of the arrestees returned to 
Grace Centers of Hope the same day.' 
With one exception, the jurisdictions to which the arrestees 
were taken would not accept custody. In that case the 
arrestee was found to have outstanding felony charges 
against him for car theft in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But the 
reason for the raid given by arresting police—"Information 
that a rapist was at the center and that an undercover officer 
had made drug purchases within the month"—was not 
borne out by any of the arrests.' 
Effects of the Raid 
Police officers repeatedly warned Grace Centers of Hope 
residents that "we will be back." The police raid was very 
traumatic for the shelter's children; teams of counselors met 
with the children for weeks. Children—and parents—asked 
for the lights to be left on all night. Pastor Clark estimates 
that 85 percent of the children have been physically or sexu- 
ally abused and that verbal abuse is common. Most of the 
children have experienced many moves in their short lives. 
Substance abuse by their parents clearly worsens children's 
lives, for drugs and alcohol are detachers—users are totally 
absorbed in themselves. The 12-month substance abuse 
treatment focuses on creating community, including 
attempts to reunite children with mothers.' Forcible separa-
tion of these children from their mothers during the 
police raid caused damage to some of the most frag-
ile—and innocent—members of society.' The child 
who was handcuffed at Grace Centers of Hope 
has, with his mother, brought lawsuit against the 
city of Pontiac, Michigan, charging violation 
of their civil rights.'" 
According to numerous local newspa-
per reports, the January police raid on 
Grace Centers of Hope began a concen-
trated push to move the shelter and its 
residents out of downtown Pontiac and 
away from potential new businesses. 
Several fire inspections, one held dur-
ing an evening prayer meeting, 
revealed needs for a new fire panel and 
fire detection system. While recent 
inspections have not required these 
upgrades, they will be installed, as they 
will contribute to the safety of the resi-
dents. Pastor Kent Clark also sought to 
acquire alternate sites for the Grace 
Centers of Hope within Pontiac, but 
Pontiac City Council denied the 
requests." 
Since Grace Centers of Hope is 
funded by private donations rather 
than governmental aid, community 
support is an ongoing concern. Press 
reports of the shelter's harassment by 
the City of Pontiac seem to have 
increased awareness of its work, and 
donations to Grace Centers of Hope have increased. 
According to the Oakland Press, the third annual Women 
Helping Women fashion show, presented by the shelter's 
staff and residents—including Pastor Clark's daughter and 
assistant Shannon Grace Clark, Miss Michigan—sold out 
the Ritz Carlton in Dearborn, Michigan, and raised $85,000 
for women's and children's programs.' 
Pontiac mayor Walter Moore, a Democrat, supports 
President Bush's plans to allow faith-based social services to 
compete with secular groups for federal funds, stating, "I 
think the strength of our city is the faith-based community." 
In fact, Grace Centers of Hope director Kent Clark and his 
daughter Shannon Grace Clark introduced George W. Bush 
child who 
was handcuffed at 
Grace Centers 
of Hope has, with his 
mother, brought 
lawsuit against the 
city of Pontiac, 
Michigan, charging 
violation of 
their civil rights. 
10 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2 0 0 1 
at a Republican campaign rally just after the Republican 
National Convention in 2000, although Pastor Clark 
strongly opposes accepting government funds for faith-
based shelter programs. He remarked, "You can become 
addicted to government checks." Clark attended the 
Conference of Mayors meeting in Detroit on January 25, 
2001, to support President Bush, despite disagreement with 
some of his policies." 
"We agree we need help to find Grace Centers of Hope a 
new home," concludes Pastor Clark. "Inside the business 
loop is not best for us. We need a campus-type setting out-
side the business loop-an irresistible offer. Perhaps Pontiac 
could buy a campus site with HUD [Housing and Urban 
Development] dollars. What the municipality meant for evil 
has turned to good for us. There has been an outpouring of 
compassion and positive sentiment, thanks to an honest 
press in Michigan. Had it not been for the news media, we 
would have drowned." 
FOOTNOTES 
' City of Pontiac, Michigan, mayor Walter Moore's office was contacted for 
comment June 22 and 29, 2001. Mayor's office staff demurs characterization 
of Pontiac police action against Grace Centers of Hope as a "raid:' 
Pastor Kent Clark, chief operating officer of Grace Centers of Hope, inter-
view with author, June 22, 2001. 
"The Grace Centers of Hope at a Glance." As of June 29, 2001, this infor-
mation could also be accessed at http://www.gracecentersofhope.org. Kent 
Clark is hardly alone in eschewing government funds for social services pro-
vided by faith-based groups. According to the June 26, 2001, Washington 
Post, the Baptist Joint Committee, the United Church of Christ, policymak-
ers of the United Methodist Church, and most major Jewish organizations 
also oppose faith-based initiatives that accept government money. The 
Reverend Martha Overall, who leads New York City's St. Ann's Episcopal 
parish in feeding and tutoring 100 children after school, notes, "I believe 
you're undercutting the essence of religion if you're paying somebody to be 
religious:' 
' Clark, interview with author, June 22, 2001. 
5 Ibid. 
Ibid. 
' Kent Clark, interview with Larry Roberts of World Socialist Web site, 
January 30, 2001 As of June 29, 2001, this information could be accessed at 
http://www.wsws.org. 
Clark, interview with author, June 22, 2001. 
Nicole Tuttle, Quell Communications Group, e-mail communication with 
Liberty, April 18, 2001. 
Tom Bouland, "Businesses Want Homeless Shelter OUT of Downtown 
Pontiac, Michigan, USA," Homeless Persons Network, Homeless NEWS, 
Mar. 27, 2001. As of June 29, 2001, this same information could be accessed 
at http://csEcolorado.edu/mail/homeless/2001/msg00178.html. Clark, 
interview with author, June 22, 2001. 
" Hugh McDiarmid, Jr., "Doors Closing to Homeless: Center, Citing 
Pressure From Pontiac, Is to End Emergency Shelter," Detroit Free Press, 
Jan. 31, 2001; Oakland Briefs: Pontiac "Homeless Shelter Decides Not to 
Close," Detroit News, Mar. 2, 2001; Kathleen Gray, "2 Other Sites Proposed 
for Controversial Shelter," Detroit Free Press, Mar., 21, 2001; Clark, intervielA 
with author, June 22, 2001. 
" Sybil Little, Oakland Press society editor, "Lighthouse's Expansion Is Cause 
for a Party: Fashion First," Oakland Press, June 27, 2001. As of June 29, 
2001, this same information was available at www.oaklandpress.com. 
" Lee Dryden, "President Bush Pushes Faith-based Programs: There May Be 
Some Democratic Support for President Bush's Plan: Oakland Press, June 
26, 2001. As of June 29, 2001, this same information was available at 
www.oaklandpress.com. 
14 Clark, interview with author, June 22, 2001. 
Atwater v. 
Lago Vista, 
NO. 991408 
In March 1997, Gail Atwater was driving her pickup 
truck in Lago Vista, Texas, with her 3-year-old son and 5-
year-old daughter riding in the front seat; none wore seat 
belts. At the time of the incident, Texas law stated that vio-
lations of these laws were misdemeanors punishable by 
fines of $25 to $50 and permitted warrantless arrest of vio-
lators. Police officer Bart Turek stopped Atwater, verbally 
harangued her, asked to see Atwater's driver's license and 
vehicle registration (unavailable, as Atwater stated her purse 
had been stolen the day before). Officer Turek refused 
Atwater permission to seek care for her crying children. He 
handcuffed her, placed her in the back of his squad car, and 
took her to jail. Fortunately, a friend of Atwater's stopped 
by and took charge of the children. Booking officers 
removed Atwater's eyeglasses, shoes, pocket contents, and 
jewelry, photographed her, placed her alone in a cell for an 
hour, then took her to arraignment before a magistrate. 
Released on $310 bond, Atwater later pleaded no contest to 
misdemeanor seat belt offenses and paid a $50 fine. 
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments 
relating to this case on December 4, 2000, and decided 
April 24, 2001 [bracketing the January 23, 2001, incident at 
Grace Centers of Hope], against Atwater and her husband 
and in favor of the city of Lago Vista, Texas, and police offi-
cer Turek. In dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, joining 
with Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and 
Stephen Breyer, wrote, "In light of the availability of cita-
tions to promote a state's interests when a fine-only offense 
has been committed, I cannot concur in a rule which 
deems a full custodial arrest to be reasonable in every cir-
cumstance. Giving police officers constitutional carte 
blanche to effect an arrest whenever there is probable cause 
to believe a fine-only misdemeanor has been committed is 
irreconcilable with the Fourth Amendment's command 
that seizures be reasonable. Instead, I would require that 
when there is probable cause to believe that a fine-only 
offense has been committed, the police officer should issue 
a citation unless the officer is able to point to specific and 
articulable facts which, taken together with rational infer-
ences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the additional] 
intrusion of a full custodial arrest." 
The rule of law is still sacred in this country. We need to 
guard against unreasonable arrest and its threat used as an 
instrument of coercion by government agencies. 
*United States Supreme Court. As of June 29, 2001, this same information 
was available at http://lawsfindlaw.com/us/000/99-1408.html. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER /DECEMBER 2001 11 
from God. In our TV-Internet-cell-phone-Palm-Pilot-
exceed-the-speed-limit culture we seem to be constantly 
looking for ways to maximize our work and minimize our 
time for the things that matter most in life. Charity is not 
only about receiving and what money, food, housing, and 
clothing can do for a needy person. It is also about giving 
and what such an act can produce in the giver. When Jesus 
said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35, 
NIV),* He was talking about the "spiritual angioplasty" that 
By CA 
N
o one I know doubts the motives behind President 
George W. Bush's desire to help "faith-based" orga-
nizations do a better job of helping the poor and 
needy. The president has seen the valuable work private 
charities are doing. He knows, because he has experienced 
for himself how a message about God and redemption can 
change a life. He believes that private groups do a better job 
than government in reaching the heart and soul of people in 
conflict with themselves and God. He is right. 
The president also believes that these charities can change 
even more lives if they receive money from the federal gov-
ernment. He has said it is unfair to discriminate against 
"faith-based" organizations simply because they worship an 
authority higher than the state. About his desire to subsidize 
faith-based charities with federal funds, he is wrong. 
There are at least four concerns I have when govern-
ment comes to the church house door and says it is there to 
help. One is the almost certain erosion of the base on 
which the life-changing faith has been constructed. Already 
members of the administration have acknowledged that no 
organization receiving federal funds would be able to share 
t-f• 
DEBATE 
its salvation message with people in need. There have been 
suggestions of setting up separate entities. One would be 
free of federal support and could preach to its god's con-
tent. The other would be "secular" in the sense that the 
"faith-based" organization could feed, clothe, and house 
the body, but bypass the soul. This, it seems to me, is noth-
ing more than a glorified welfare program that some of the 
more conservative groups now itching to take federal 
money used to criticize when liberals were on the receiving 
end of federal largesse. If faith becomes a choice and does 
not permeate all that the organization does, one might as 
well continue to support the existing programs, which are 
already devoid of faith. 
The second concern I have is that churches and other 
religious institutions and organizations will see charity as a 
corporate responsibility, instead of a personal mandate 
Cal Thomas, whose latest book is The Wit and Wisdom of Cal 
Thomas (Promise Press), is America's most widely syndicated 
op-ed columnist. 
charity brings to a hardened heart. Giving of one's self, as 
well as one's means, produces a spiritual blessing in the 
heart of the giver, which can also be used by God to truly 
touch the heart of the person on the receiving end of the 
gift. But it is the giver who receives the more important 
blessing, according to Jesus. 
We already have too many religious professionals who 
will, in exchange for a contribution, feed the hungry, clothe 
the naked, visit those in prison, and care for widows and 
orphans. The call to do such things is more personal than 
corporate, and the blessings that come from personal obedi-
ence were designed for individuals, not organizations with 
the proper 501 (c) (3) tax-deductible status. 
Third, when Jesus said in Matthew 9:37, "The harvest is 
plentiful but the workers are few" (NIV), He didn't follow 
up by advising His disciples to go and ask Caesar for some 
denarii. Lack of money was never a problem for Him, 
because He owned (and had created) everything. Lack of 
will by His followers was the problem. He says so in verse 
38: "Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out 
12 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
workers into his harvest field" (NIV). It wasn't about ask-
ing Caesar. It was about asking God. 
Fourth, what about the political implications? Will a 
future Democratic president decide to pull the financial 
plug on organizations that have received federal funds dur-
ing the Bush years in order to "reward" faith-based pro-
grams of his choosing that may be more in tune with his 
political worldview? What is to stop this becoming a politi-
cal football? Furthermore, who will decide which faith- 
Barna reports that among churches, six out of 10 adults put 
money in the collection plate, with the average donation 
amounting to just $649, down from an $806 average in 1999. 
Some of those raising the biggest ruckus about the decline of 
culture give the least. While 39 percent of all adults gave noth-
ing to a church last year, nearly one quarter of them were peo-
ple who identified themselves as "born again." Since the stan-
dard most often preached is the tithe (donating 10 percent of 
annual income to the church, a custom only 12 percent of the 
born again practice, says Barna), it appears that those com-
manded to do the most are actually doing the least. 
The reason we have so many poor and needy among us 
in this prosperous nation is not that government isn't doing 
enough. It is that people who claim to follow God are not 
doing enough. Allowing government to step in where only 
angels should be treading will diminish, not enhance, the 
work of faith-based groups. That's because of the inevitable 
restrictions government will place on their activities. That 
the "workers are few" is not the fault of government. It is the 
fault of a disobedient church population. Government can-
not kindle a flame in the heart of individual worshipers, but 
based program is a success, and what standard will be used? 
And then there's the problem of religions, sects, and cults 
that are out of the mainstream. Will they sue if they don't get 
money? And how will the courts deal with such litigation? 
The problem for faith-based organizations that want 
government help is not that they lack money. The problem 
is a lack of will on the part of those who should feel moti-
vated by the love of God to reach out and touch the life of a 
person caught in difficult circumstances. Jesus instructed 
His followers to take nothing with them when they went out 
to preach His gospel. That seems foreign in the age of direct 
mail and preachers on TV who imply that the work of God 
will be thwarted unless you send them $25 or more. Millions 
of people attend worship services every week in America, but 
what they give (or, more accurately, don't give) to the work 
of God is pathetic. 
According to the Barna Research Group, reported giving 
to nonprofit organizations and churches was down six per-
cent last year from 1999. The average giving per person last 
year was a paltry $886, 15 percent less than the previous year. 
government can help extinguish whatever spark might be 
fanned into a flame. 
Not very many years ago private and religious charities 
were honored and promoted in our country, and those who 
engaged in charitable work were revered in their communities. 
We need more sermons about our responsibilities to the poor, 
not more help from the federal government, which has enough 
problems of its own without bringing it through the door of 
the church house and causing many believers to submit to the 
will of the state instead of bowing to the will of God. 
Although HR 7, the Faith-based Initiatives Bill, passed in the 
House back in July, it has yet to pass the Senate. In the mean-
time the debate continues and, given the larger aspects of the 
discussion, will probably continue regardless of the Senate out-
come.—Editor. 
*Texts credit to NIV are from the Holy Bible, New International 
Version. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, International Bible 
Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Bible Publishers. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 13 
B
arbara Gardner-Ihrig, a United States 
Postal Service employee, began her long 
difficult battle against religious discrimi-
nation shortly after her employment com-
menced in April 1986. "I made it known to 
them that I couldn't work on Sabbaths," 
Gardner-Ihrig says, "but they just blew it off, 
saying it shouldn't be a problem:' 
Gardner-Ihrig's difficulties resulted from her 
religious conviction, as a Seventh-day Adventist, 
not to work on the Sabbath, the period of time 
from sunset on Friday night to sunset on 
Saturday night. During this time she refused to 
work. Because her initial position was part-time 
flexible (PTF), Sabbath wasn't an issue at first. 
But Gardner-Ihrig wanted and needed to work 
full-time. "Everybody wants to be a regular," she 
says. "Then you know how many hours a day 
you're going to work and when your days off 
will be. You don't know that as a PTF." 
A position opened up that she was qualified to 
bid on, but Gardner-Ihrig wasn't able to do that 
because the position would have required her to 
work on Sabbath. As she lacked the seniority to 
request the coveted weekend time off, she was 
prevented from making the bid. Not long after 
this opportunity she was called into the office and 
told to sign papers terminating her employment 
because she refused to work on the Sabbath. 
"They told me there was no alternative but 
to sign the papers and terminate," Gardner-
Ihrig says. "I did it under duress. They made me 
ters in Silver Spring, Maryland. "The church 
attorneys and the Postal Service were able to 
come up with an agreement," says Amireh Al-
Haddad, assistant director of public affairs and 
religious liberty for the Southern Union 
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. "Barbara 
would be accommodated as a PTF employee in 
the central Florida postal region, without hav-
ing to go to full-time and bid on her shifts." It 
seemed a good solution. "As far as we know, that 
was the first time a postal facility agreed not to 
force an employee to go into the labor union:' 
remembers Al-Haddad. 
In 1988, Gardner-Ihrig was reinstated as a 
PTF. The labor union assured her that regular 
work would follow just as soon as there was a 
position open to accommodate her religious 
convictions. But instead of things progressing 
smoothly, Gardner-Ihrig was approached five 
times by management in an attempt to force her 
into a regular position that would require her to 
work during Sabbath hours. With the labor 
union's help she was able to decline each time. 
Mercifully, in 1990 a position opened up 
that she could "back into." Backing into the 
position meant that she didn't have to bid on it; 
the Postal Service just put her into it. The posi-
tion didn't require Sabbath work. Gardner-Ihrig 
gladly accepted, and her employment pro-
ceeded without further difficulties until 1996, 
when the Post Office began to implement sys-
tem automation. As a result, her position was 
tam 
feel 
feel like I had to. And I didn't have enough 
knowledge to know." So for almost two years 
Gardner-Ihrig worked for another company, 
starting over at half the salary. 
Gardner-Ihrig sought assistance from the 
Public Affiars and Religious Liberty department 
of the Seventh-day Adventist world headquar- 
Adriel Morton is a freelance journalist writing 
from near Albany, New York. 
eliminated. Her supervisor arbitrarily resched-
uled everybody. Gardner-Ihrig had seniority, 
and she should have been able to bid on her days 
off. Though they had the ability to do it, super-
visors did not give her the option of having 
Sabbath off. The assignment she received 
required her to work a Friday night shift insted 
(part of the 24-hour Sabbath). 
When that happened she approached her 
supervisor and explained the problem. The 
14 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
supervisor said she'd have to work. So for at least 
six months Gardner-Ihrig put in a request every 
week to receive Friday off. It was subse-
quently denied, and she was scheduled 
on Friday. So every Friday night she 
called to say she would not be in. 
"In comparison," says Al-Haddad, 
"they granted requests for people of 
other religious faiths. A Jehovah's Witness 
and a Baptist were both granted requests 
for a change in schedule for Sundays. 
Barbara's requests were denied. The labor 
union would sign off on it; the supervisor 
would refuse. She was stuck in a situation in 
which every week she was faced with the 
possibility of being fired." 
Gardner-Ihrig was harassed by her supervi- 
sor and began accumulating "absent without 
leave" occurrences on her employment record 
for each no-show Friday night. In addition, she 
was not paid for the time she did not work, effec-
tively cutting her pay. 
"We went through the very slow process of 
filing a complaint against the Post Office," says 
Al-Haddad. "It took two years from the time we 
first filed the grievance to the time we came up 
for an administrative hearing. In the hearing we 
sat before an administrative judge for the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission. We 
requested the hearing to try to obtain the 
Sabbath accommodation. In the hearing, we 
faced Barbara's openly hostile supervisor. The 
regional senior labor relations specialist threat-
ened that if Gardner-Ihrig missed another 
Sabbath it would be cause 
for termination. Witnesses 
we called basically lied. The 
supervisor was allowed to 
sit in with all the witnesses 
who were employed under 
her, and she glared at them 
the whole time. The result 
was that we lost." 
Though the hearing did 
not have a positive out-
come for Gardner-Ihrig, she did receive a respite 
of sorts. "In reality, the supervisor could have 
just given her Friday/ Saturday off," says Al-
Haddad. "There were maybe two other people 
who had that day off. In our opinion, as we 
reviewed the record, that would not have created 
an undue hardship on the Postal Service. 
Instead, what the supervisor decided to do, after 
we lost the hearing, was to create further prob-
lems by splitting her days off." Gardner-Ihrig 
Continued on page 28 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 15 
By 
Free
JAmEs D. 
STANDISH 
in times of 
This generation will remem-
ber for our entire lives the 
moment we saw the World Trade 
Center collapse. I know I will. 
Sitting with others in a colleague's 
office we looked in disbelief as the 
catastrophe unfolded on a screen 
too small to contain the horror. 
Like many Americans, our unbelief 
with anxiety. I wondered which, if 
friends who work in Manhattan were 
rifying conflagration. As the mighty 
was mixed sorrow. There is simply no adequate way to 
any, of my express the collective grief we feel for those taken 
in that hor- by acts of unspeakable brutality. 
towers fell, 
In that moment 
our world has changed 
Institutions we once looked to for security 
now appear fragile. It is harder to be blasé about 
life's most profound questions. We have a deeper 
sense of empathy for our fellows, and a greater 
our hearts fell with them. We felt similar shock 
when, only a few miles from our office, the 
Pentagon was attacked; and then reports came in 
of the downed airliner in Pennsylvania. And even 
though none of my friends were among the fatal-
ities, I, like all of us, feel in my heart an immense 
16 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
appreciation of how truly precious life is. 
Americans are suddenly talking about Tajikistan, 
Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. And many of us are just plain 
scared. We are at war against an unseen enemy; 
an enemy that might strike anywhere and any-
time. And the enemy might well be the guy across 
the street, or around the corner. In all of this, we 
want to ensure we are safe. 
Stuart Taylor of the National Journal 
summed up what many in our nation are feel-
ing. He noted that the first enunciation of 
American freedoms comes in the Declaration of 
Independence and reads that all men are 
"endowed by their Creator with certain inalien-
able Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty 
and the pursuit of Happiness?' Of these liber-
ties, he wryly noted, he is particularly fond of 
life. Such an assertion at a time of crisis is in 
keeping with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Yes, 
we want liberty, but first we must have life.' The 
question then becomes what we are willing to 
trade in order to ensure 
our personal safety. There have 
always been widely conflicting answers to 
this question. 
An Historical Perspective 
The questions arising from what to do about 
freedom during times of war is not new. Cicero 
famously stated that in times of war, the law is 
silent. This has appeared to be the case, at least in 
part, during times of insecurity in our own history. 
John Adams, whose reputation is currently on 
the rise as a result of David McCullough's best 
selling biography, supported the Alien & Sedition 
James D. Standish is Director of Legislative 
Affairs for the World headquarters of the 
Seventh- day Adventist Church, in Silver Spring, 
Maryland. 
AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS �
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 17 
Freedom
i2 
 
SL 
Act of 1798. The Act, which was vehemently 
opposed by Thomas Jefferson, gave the state wide 
powers to punish those who engaged in such 
"crimes" as falsely defaming the U.S. Gover-
nment. In the context of the numerous threats to 
the stability of the fledgling government, it is not 
surprising that it felt forced to so dramatically 
limit the freedoms so recently adopted (the Bill of 
Rights were ratified by the states only seven years 
prior to the passage of the Alien & Sedition Act). 
But the irony of such limitations in a nation "con-
ceived in liberty" was evident even at the time of 
the enactment of the law. 
Similar intrusions on freedom occurred dur-
ing other times of national crisis. President 
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus 
during the Civil War. The writ of habeas corpus 
is an ancient protection of civil liberties encased 
in British common law, and incorporated into 
U.S. common law. The purpose of the writ is to 
provide the right of a person who is incarcer-
ated to have a hearing at which he is told why he 
is being held. The suspension of the writ of 
habeas corpus resulted in people being held 
without charge and without access to civil 
courts. It was thus a most extreme limitation on 
liberty. Interestingly, although President 
As calls were going out to defend American 
Muslims from vigilante attacks in the wake of the 
events of November 11, some calls were met with 
the searching question; Why should America 
bend over backwards to provide the kind of reli-
gious freedom to Muslims, that Islamic nations 
typically refuse to provide to Christians? 
It is true that there is scarcely an Islamic 
nation on the face of the earth that provides true 
religious freedom: the more Islamic a country is, 
in general, the less tolerant it is of other religions. 
It is not only extremist nations such as Afghan-
istan, Iran and Libya that follow this trend. 
America's Islamic allies tend to be as repres-
sive as its enemies. Saudi Arabia is a perfect 
Lincoln's suspension of the writ was subse-
quently found unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court after the Civil War concluded, suspension 
of the writ in certain circumstances is explicitly 
permitted in the Constitution.' 
During the First World War, the freedom of 
speech was severely curtailed. The Espionage 
Act of 1917, which was amended in 1918, listed 
a series of ambiguous offenses related to 
encouraging seditions. The Act provided enor-
mous power to the government to suppress 
anti-war opinion, to harass nonconformists and 
to inhibit the dissemination of anything other 
than the view of the government and its sup-
porters. At the same time, those with German 
connections or sympathies were frequently 
harassed by the state and private individuals. 
At the beginning of WWII, respect for both 
the freedom of religion and political freedom 
were tested in the Minersville School District v. 
Govitis case. A state had expelled two Jehovah's 
Witness childen, aged 10 and 12, because of 
their refusal to salute the flag. The children's 
faith forbade saluting the flag. Alarmingly, the 
Supreme Court upheld the expulsions 8-1, 
thereby indicating that the school's desire to 
create national unity trumped the free speech 
example. While the human rights record of 
China has frequently and justifiably been in the 
news and on the tips of the tongues of American 
politicians, the dreadful Saudi record is seldom 
mentioned. The U.S. State Department frankly 
stated in its Annual report on International 
Religious Freedom 2000,that "Freedom of reli-
gion does not exist" in Saudi Arabia. This view 
was echoed by the US Commission on 
International Religious Freedom which stated in 
its 2001 report that the Saudi government's poli-
cies towards religion are "extremely repressive." 
Despite Saudi Arabia's large non-Muslim 
population of guest workers, these non- Muslims 
are forbidden to engage in even the most innocu-
ous group worship. Credible reports of the arrest 
and cruel treatment of non-Muslims in Saudi 
Arabia, charged with meeting together with fel-
low believers or "proselytizing Muslims," con-
tinue to pour out of the country. 
And it is not only nations considered strict 
Islamic states that abuse the free exercise rights 
of their citizens. The "moderate" state of 
Malaysia, for example, has laws that, according 
the U.S. State Department, make it "very diffi-
cult for Muslims to change their religion 
18 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
and free exercise rights of citizens. 
The intrusion on freedom during war that is 
most current in our collective memory is the 
internment of Japanese Americans during the 
Second World War. The removal and intern-
ment was performed under the authority of 
Executive Order 9066, which was signed by 
President Rooselvelt in 1942. The Order gave 
the military the authority to exclude any group 
of people from any region for military necessity. 
No provision was made for hearings. In 1990, 
President George Bush signed an official apol-
ogy to Japanese Americans for the way they were 
treated during the war. A memorial to Japanese 
Americans who were sent to internment camps 
during the Second World War was opened this 
year, and is located only a few minutes walk 
from the Capitol. 
The history of compromise of fundamental 
freedoms during wartime is concerning. It raises 
the question of what types of freedoms will our 
generation be willing to sacrifice, and whose free-
doms we will be willing to sacrifice during this 
time of crisis. Chief Justice Rehnquist asserts in 
his book on liberty during war time that "there is 
no reason to believe that future wartime presi-
dents will act differently from Lincoln, Wilson, or 
legally?' In addition, evangelizing Muslims is 
strictly prohibited in Malaysia. These draconian 
restrictions on freedom of faith are imple-
mented despite a relatively large non-Muslim 
population in that country and the nation's tra-
dition of pluralism. 
Despite the current state of affairs, we know 
from history that Islamic regimes were not always 
intolerant. The Moors, whose conquest of Spain 
begin in 710 and who were not completely 
expelled from Spain until 1492 when Granada 
fell to Spanish forces, provide a good example. 
During long periods of the Moorish occupation, 
they showed far more tolerance for religious 
diversity than their Christian neighbors. With 
this tolerance came advancement. There is virtual 
unanimity that the Moorish culture was the most 
advanced in Europe during the Middle Ages. The 
Muslim world of the present could learn much 
from this most successful period of advanced 
Islamic civilization built on tolerance that far 
exceeded the norms of the time. 
We may well be at a hinge-point in world his-
tory. The terror attacks were in part prompted by 
an intolerant extremist faith. The horrifying 
results of this bigotry are now plain to be seen. As 
Roosevelt?' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor 
recently echoed this view, stating that as a result 
of the terror attacks "we're likely to experience 
more restrictions on our personal freedom than 
has ever been the case in our country."' 
The view that fundamental liberties, such as 
the right to know the charges for which we are 
being held, the freedom of speech, and the free-
dom of movement, will necessarily be violated 
during crisis is not universally shared. In the 
stone walls surrounding the memorial to 
Japanese Americans interned during WWII, the 
words of prominent Americans reject repeating 
the past. Senator Inouye is quoted saying "The 
lessons learned must remain as a grave reminder 
of what we must not allow to happen again to 
any group?' President Reagan's words, "Here we 
admit a wrong...," are also etched as a reminder 
to us that exigent actions in times of fear can 
leave a bitter legacy for generations to come. 
Whether history will judge us in a manner 
any kinder than our forebears will turn on 
whether we repeat the mistakes of the past or 
learn from them. 
When thinking through our response, both 
individual and national, it is worth considering 
Continued on page 20 
long as Islamic states from the Morocco to the 
Maldives, from Algeria to Afghanistan, continue 
to practice state-sponsored religious repression, 
disrespect for other faiths and cultures will be the 
norm in the Islamic world. And as long as this 
norm is maintained, the extremism born of 
intolerance is likely to continue to thrive. 
We began by asking a simple question. If 
Islamic nations do not respect religious free-
dom, should America respect the freedom of 
American Muslims? The answer has to be a 
resounding Yes. America may not be a perfect 
society, but it is most certainly proven to be a 
nation that respects a broad array of faiths. This 
is a powerful example to the rest of the world, 
including Islamic states, that religious freedom 
not only promotes human happiness, but also 
stability and prosperity. Now, with the bitter 
after-taste of religious intolerance fresh in our 
mouths, is the time to redouble our efforts to 
knock down the walls of state sponsored bigot 
and religious oppression. 
' US Department of State, Annual Report on International 
Religious Freedom 2000, p. 204. 
Id. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 19 
Continued from page 19 
the environment in which our freedoms were 
originally encased in law. The Declaration of 
Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of 
Rights were all adopted during times of intense 
national insecurity. At no time in the years 
since, with the possible exception of the civil 
war, has the nation been as weak, its existence 
as severely threatened, or the security so tenu-
ous. Yet in this environment of crisis, the 
founding fathers boldly proclaimed protection 
of individual freedoms. 
Current Process 
With a taste of history in our mouths, let us 
turn to events as they are unfolding. In some 
ways, societal and governmental response to the 
attacks has been encouraging. Proposed anti-
terrorism legislation has been relatively moder-
ate in the circumstances, and is being further 
moderated through the legislative process at the 
time this article is being written. In addition, on 
the whole, society has responded responsibly. 
There have, however, been some disturbing 
exceptions. 
A few days after the attacks, my wife gave her 
students at the University where she lectures the 
opportunity to share their thoughts and feelings. 
Student after student expressed their shock, their 
pain, and their anger. Finally, a quiet student 
asked to speak to the class. 
She was a slightly built woman of Indian eth-
nicity. Her words sent chills down the spines of 
the class members. She was, she explained, a 
member of the Sikh community. Since the 
attacks, Sikh children had become the objects of 
ridicule at school, as classmates equated Sikh tur-
bans with the headgear worn by Osama bin Laden 
and the Taliban. Worse, Sikh's across the country 
had been attacked and one had even been killed in 
a "reprisal" attack. She began to cry as she spoke. 
"This is the first time I have been afraid to come 
to class," she said. "We are just terrified:' 
Within one day, American Sikhs, American 
Muslims, and Americans of Middle Eastern ori-
gin went from being respected members of their 
communities to being considered the enemy by 
some Americans. Reports multiplied of Muslims 
being treated in the most humiliating manner, 
and of verbal and physical attacks on these 
groups. In one case, passengers demanded a 
Muslim family be ejected from the plane before it 
took off. To the amazement of some passengers, 
the airline complied and the family was uncere-
monially evicted. Similar harassment and attacks 
were reported as far away as Brisbane, Australia, 
where a mosque was destroyed. 
In all of this, it should be noted that the 
President has acted with honor. President Bush 
has roundly condemned vigilante acts by private 
individuals. And this condemnation has been 
echoed by many of the most prominent citizens 
in our society. The President and his staff 
should be highly commended for not only 
resisting calls for group recrimination, but for 
working actively against such suggestions by 
words of praise for the Islamic traditions, his 
visit to a mosque and his meeting with members 
of the targeted groups to urge respect for all reli-
gious faiths. 
Despite this, calls for group punishment con-
tinue. A Time/CNN poll taken on September 27 
revealed that 31 per cent of Americans approve of 
the U.S. Government holding U.S. Citizens of 
Arab decent in camps until it can be determined 
whether they are terrorists. The same poll 
revealed that half of the respondents approved of 
requiring U.S. citizens of Arab decent to carry 
special identification cards. If history is any indi-
cation, we can expect these calls to grow. 
Calls for group punishment strike at the 
heart of our freedoms. A fundamental tenet of 
freedom of religion, for example, is that people 
cannot be punished because of their beliefs. 
Whether those targeted are Muslims, Jews, 
Christians or any other faith group, the punish-
ment on the basis of faith is wrong. Our dedica-
tion to this principle is tested at this time. If we 
are to pass the test, we must stand strongly for 
rights of Muslims. 
Freedom's Echo 
As the events of November 11 reverberate 
through our society, it is important that we all 
keep in mind what it is that we hold dear. At the 
heart of the American experiment is a dedica-
tion to fundamental freedoms enunciated in the 
Bill of Rights. The test of our dedication to this 
freedom is our willingness to uphold them, even 
for unpopular faiths during difficult times. 
Indeed, it is in difficult times that protections 
are most sorely needed. 
As defenders of freedom, we must remain 
alert. For if history teaches us anything, times of 
crisis are often dangerous times for freedom. 
' Stuart Taylor speaking at the Cato Institute, October 2, 
2001 
2 US. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. 
' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in response to the terrorist 
attacks, quoted by Linda Greenhouse in "O'Connor Foresees 
Limits on Freedom," The New York Times, Sept 29, 2001. 
20 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 �
ILLUSTRATION BY JOHN HART 
Vi 
T
hose following the debate over President George 
W Bush's faith-based initiative are familiar with 
an oft-repeated claim-78 percent of Americans 
oppose the right of religious entities receiving government 
funding to discriminate on the basis of religion in hiring.* 
On its face, "no taxation to fund discrimination" appears to 
state a principle fundamental to the protection of civil rights. 
And can 78 percent of the people be wrong? 
James Standish specializes in church-state issues. He earned his 
law degree cum laude from Georgetown University, Wash-
ington, D.C. He also has an M.B.A. from the Darden Graduate 
School of Business at the University of Virginia. 
A 
Well, yes, they can. The "no taxation to fund 
discrimination" principle is overly simplistic and 
when applied in a principled manner strikes at 
the heart of religious pluralism in America. 
When President Bush proposed the faith-
based initiative, there were numerous objections 
to the plan. Questions included whether the ini-
tiative violated the Constitution, whether it 
would result in government control of churches, 
whether recipients of services would be well 
served under the proposal, whether unpopular 
faiths would be excluded �
from funding, 
and whether money �
would go to 
fund proselytism. Each �
of the concerns 
ents of funding should lose their right to hire only 
those who concur with the faith's religious tenets. 
These voices concede that it is appropriate for 
religious institutions to discriminate on the basis 
of religion in hiring when they fund positions 
exclusively with private funds. They claim, how-
ever, that identical forms of discrimination are 
improper when public money is involved. 
Advocates for this view provide two principled 
reasons to justify this distinction. 
The first reason is that while private money 
can be used to fund religious content, public 
money cannot. On this there is a virtual consen-
sus among all parties in the debate. Proponents 
concept, if adopted in a principled manner, produces outcomes th 
religious pluralism, a part of which 
expressed was serious, and alone was enough to 
give a prudent observer significant questions 
regarding the plan. Despite the seriousness of 
each of these issues, as the debate has continued, 
the objection that appears to have eclipsed all 
others is the issue of whether churches that 
receive funding under the plan will be able to 
retain their right to hire only those who share 
their religious values. 
The Community Solutions Act (HR 7), 
which contains provisions implementing the 
administration's faith-based initiative and 
which was passed by the House in July, explicitly 
states that religious entities receiving funds 
under the initiative will retain their exemption 
under the federal civil rights laws. The issue is 
far from dead, however, as discrimination is 
expected to again be at the forefront of the 
debate when the faith-based initiative is dis-
cussed in the Senate, and there remains debate 
over the applicability of state and local discrim-
ination laws on recipients of the funding. 
Discriminate on Your Own Dime 
In the current debate over the faith-based ini- 
tiative, many voices have demanded that recipi- 
of the "no taxation to fund discrimination" theme 
go one step further, however. They note that the 
only purpose of hiring people of a given religious 
persuasion is to advance religious principles. 
Thus the desire to maintain the ability to hire only 
coreligionists when hiring workers in an activity 
that is partially or fully publicly funded is prima 
facie evidence that religious institutions want to 
use government funding to engage in proselytiza-
tion and other religious activity. 
The obvious problem with this argument is 
the assumption that the exclusive rationale for 
maintaining the religious exemption is to per-
form religious work. But there are a variety of 
reasons a church may want to maintain its right 
to hire coreligionists. For example, churches may 
need their workers to split their time between 
church functions funded by private money and 
programs funded by the government. If reli-
gious entities are forced to employ a completely 
different set of hiring criteria for the hours of 
services funded by the government than the cri-
teria used to fund the hours of service funded by 
private giving, the church will either have to 
abandon its hiring criteria across the board, or 
keep two separate groups of employees hired 
22 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
under different criteria and working under two 
sets of expectations. Operationally this may pre-
sent significant difficulties. 
Another example of a legitimate goal for 
maintaining religious-based hiring criteria is the 
desire to project the values of the religious insti-
tution in all that it does. While soup servers or 
drug counselors are not permitted to proselytize 
while providing government-funded services, 
they are by no means required to actively violate 
the core values of a religious institution in which 
the services are provided. There are many ways 
in which such violations can occur. For example, 
the use of coarse language by workers may 
the "no taxation 
O fund discrimination" 
e devastating to a vibrant 
rant religious institutions. 
undermine the principles of the entity in which 
the services are provided. The best way of avoid-
ing both intentional and unintentional violations 
of a church's principles may be to hire people 
who have internalized those principles. 
The second argument often used to support 
the "no taxation to fund discrimination" argu-
ment is that people should not be taxed to fund 
jobs that they are ineligible to perform on the 
basis of their religion or lifestyle. This is indeed 
a serious objection. Certainly if a large percent-
age of government contracts were to go to a par-
ticular denomination, or if all contracts were to 
go to religious rather than secular service 
providers, a significant problem of opportunity 
for individuals might occur. However, in a 
nation with such a rich pluralistic society, such 
a result appears exceedingly unlikely without 
impermissibly favoring one faith over another, 
or the religious over the secular. 
In addition, it is clearly permissible for the 
state to choose not to utilize religious entities to 
provide social services, and as previously dis-
cussed there are many reasons the state may 
choose not to. But when religious institutions 
are invited to participate in the provision of ser- 
vices, this participation must not be predicated 
on the abandonment of the religious character 
of the institutions. Such governmental entice-
ment for religious compromise is unseemly. 
It is important to keep in mind that religious 
institutions are not religious merely because 
they have the name of a faith printed on their 
signs and stationery. They are religious because 
the living, breathing people working within 
them share a common religious vision. 
Therefore, to require religious institutions to 
hire those who disagree with their religious 
vision is to compromise and ultimately destroy 
the religious nature of the institutions. 
The "no taxation to fund discrimination" con-
cept, if adopted in a principled manner, produces 
outcomes that are devastating to a vibrant reli-
gious pluralism, a part of which is vibrant reli-
gious institutions. As government's role in society 
has expanded, it has become increasingly difficult 
for religious institutions to remain completely 
separate from government programs. In fact, in 
some instances the government has created pro-
grams that fully occupy a field in which religious 
institutions operate. For example, Medicare 
almost completely occupies the field of acute 
health-care insurance for the elderly. In these cir-
cumstances, religious institutions have the choice 
either to accept government payments or to close. 
In this situation, if the government forbids recip-
ients of such funding to maintain their religious 
character through hiring, it eliminates whole 
classes of religious entities. Such a result would be 
the deathblow to a truly pluralistic society. Thus 
"no taxation to fund discrimination" when 
applied in a principled manner produces results 
that are on their face unacceptable and strike at 
the heart of a free and just society. 
Yes, there are many solid reasons to oppose 
the faith-based initiative. But the "no taxation to 
fund discrimination" argument is not one of 
them. While the premise of the argument is 
faulted, it does expose a serious danger posed 
by the faith-based initiative; there are many 
who are willing to use strings tied to govern-
ment funding to advance their social/political 
agendas at the expense of the integrity of reli-
gious institutions. Somewhat ironically, this 
may be the best argument against the faith-
based initiative. 
* The 78 percent figure was generated from a survey 
performed by the Pew Research Center. The Pew 
Forum on Religion & Public Life, "American Views on 
Religion," Politics & Public Life, April 2001, p. 1. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 23 
s
uppression of public religious expres-
sion in Canada intensified with a June 
19, 2001, decision by the Province of 
Saskatchewan's Human Rights Com-
mission that public reference to the 
Bible can be considered "hate speech." The Sas-
katchewan HRC has ordered both the Saskatoon 
StarPhoenix newspaper and Hugh Owens, of the 
nearby city of Regina, to pay $1,500 to three 
homosexual activists for publishing an advertise-
ment with references to Bible texts condemning 
homosexuality. The ruling also prohibits 
Christian activist Owens from "further publish-
ing or displaying the bumper stickers" upon 
which his newspaper ad was based. 
Owens placed the advertisement in the 
StarPhoenix of June 30, 1997, on the occasion of 
the city of Saskatoon's Gay Pride Week. It listed 
in column 4 Bible references (Romans 1:21-
32, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and 1 
Corinthians 6:1-10), followed by a mathe-
matical equals sign, followed by the universal 
prohibition sign (circle with slash) containing 
two stickmen holding hands. Three homosexual 
activists complained to the Saskatchewan 
Human Rights Commission. The provincial and 
federal human rights codes now include "sexual 
orientation" as a protected category. In the sub-
sequent human rights hearing, Roman Catholic, 
Lutheran, and Jewish representatives testified 
about the biblical perspective on homosexuality. 
However, a witness for the complainants, 
Rev. Brent Hawkes of Toronto's Metropolitan 
Community church (who recently tried to cir-
cumvent Canadian law by "marrying" two 
homosexual couples) testified that the Bible 
does not in fact condemn homosexuality. 
Hawkes also called faiths such as Catholicism 
and Judaism "extreme!' and branded funda-
mentalist Christians as "satanic." 
In its ruling, the HRC conceded that Owens, 
an evangelical Christian, was "publicly expressing 
his honestly held religious belief." However, it 
ruled, the Human Rights Code can issue a "rea-
sonable restriction" on his free expression, since 
the advertisement exposed the complainants "to 
hatred, ridicule, and their dignity was affronted 
on the basis of their sexual orientation!' 
Gay litigant Gens Hellquist says he's "cer-
tainly pleased" with the tribunal's decision. 
"There are standards for what's fair comment 
regarding Jews and racial minorities, and now 
the commission has set standards on fair com-
ment regarding homosexuals!' Hellquist said. 
The appeal to religious freedom is "a common 
ploy with the right wing," but religious freedom 
is "not a real issue here!' he says, since "not every-
one interprets those verses the same way." 
"People are free to interpret the Bible any 
way they want in their own lives, but (they 
cannot use) that interpretation to create a 
climate of hate and intolerance. Owens' 
agenda is really scary. He didn't say it in so 
many words, but he really believes that judges 
(following Leviticus) should put gays to death!' 
continued Hellquist. 
For his part, Owens, 50, single and a career 
corrections officer, denies that, as a Christian, 
he wants homosexuals put to death. But he does 
believe that "eternal salvation is at stake," both 
for those engaging in homosexual acts and for 
himself, if he fails to inform them about "what 
God says about their behavior." He dismisses 
the possibility of "alternative interpretations" of 
the Bible as "simply the old secular-humanist 
standby" argument. 
Owens says he placed the advertisement in 
the newspaper as "a Christian response" to Gay 
Pride Week. "I put the biblical references, but 
Joe Woodard is the religion writer for the Calgary 
Herald in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 
Belief and Conduct in 
CAN A 
24 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
not the actual verses, so the ad would become 
interactive. I figured somebody'd have to look 
them up in the Bible first, or if they didn't have 
a Bible, they'd have to find one." 
Owens believes his case is clearly a collision 
between religious freedom and sexual orientation 
rights. The HRC judged that "while the stick-fig-
ures are more neutral?' it is precisely the "combi-
nation of the prohibition symbol with the Bible 
passages that exposes homosexuals to hatred:' 
Owens is planning to appeal the decision, and 
thinks his case may end up before the Supreme 
Court of Canada. 
Paul Donlevy, vicar general for 
the Roman Catholic Diocese of 
Saskatoon, was called to testify 
before the HRC on behalf of 
Catholicism. He testified that the 
church understands sexual orienta-
tion may not be chosen, but never-
theless "every person is called to holi-
ness . . . and homosexuals are called 
to the same sexual morality as any 
other unmarried people?' 
"All I said was a variation on 
hate the sin but love the sinner," 
Donlevy recounts. But for his pains, 
he was berated by both the gay liti-
gants and later by a conservative 
lobby group, who called him "a 
lackey of the HRC." 
"I certainly hope this decision is appealed," 
Donlevy says. "It's a great concern that simply 
referring to biblical scriptures can be called hate 
speech. Soon we'll be so politically correct, we 
won't be able to preach?' 
Conservative gay activist John McKellar, 
president of Toronto-based Homosexuals 
Opposed to Pride Extremism (HOPE), calls the 
Saskatchewan HRC ruling a "five-star blood-
bath" for both Canadian families and, ulti-
mately, Canadian homosexuals themselves. 
McKellar thinks gay militants are now "pots 
calling kettles black" in suppressing supposed 
religious intolerance, and their own intolerance 
will eventually rebound on them. 
"The major media are all nonstop advertise-
ments for the gay lifestyle, so how far are they 
prepared to go in denying free speech to 
Christians, Muslims, and Jews?" McKellar asked. 
"No major world religion has ever accepted 
homosexual behavior. And if [gay] activists had 
any sense of history, they'd realize their own 
lifestyle is a symptom of an overurbanized, rel-
ativized culture heading into decadence?' 
The Owens case is only one instance of a con-
tinuing trend in Canada of human rights tri-
bunals imposing the public affirmation of homo-
sexuality upon reluctant Christians. During the 
past five years the mayors and city councils of 
more than a half dozen cities have been ordered 
to declare "Gay Pride" days, often contrary to 
their expressed religious commitments. 
And meanwhile, in Ontario, Toronto printer 
Scott Brockie is preparing to go to trial at the 
superior court level, after losing two hearings 
before human rights tribunals. 
Brockie's crime was refusing to print sta-
tionery for the local Gay and Lesbian Archives. 
He had previously done printing jobs for 
homosexuals, but he judged that printing sta-
tionery for an advocacy group would constitute 
a personal endorsement of their lifestyle, con-
trary to his Christian faith. If he loses his 
appeals and faces a judicial order to serve gay 
activism, he says, he will surrender his business 
rather than comply. 
Unfortunately neither the Owens nor the 
Brockie cases have been settled by what 
Christian and pro-family activists are taking to 
be at least a partial victory in the Canadian 
Supreme Court. Still, Canadian Christian edu-
cators and social activists were cheered, May 17, 
when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-1 
in favor of Trinity Western University of 
Langley, British Columbia, in its battle with the 
British Columbia College of Teachers (BCCT). 
Trinity Western is a full degree-granting uni-
versity of 2,850 students, affiliated with the 
Evangelical Free Church of Canada. For five years 
TWU has been fighting a BCCT ruling barring it 
from accrediting its education graduates for pub-
lic school teaching. TWU's Christian code of stu-
dent conduct forbids "practices that are biblically 
condemned?' such as homosexual activity (or 
indeed, any premarital sex), drinking or gam-
bling. And this, the College of Teachers argued, 
must encourage TWU education graduates to be 
discriminatory or "homophobic" in their public 
school classrooms. 
For more than a decade, however, TWU's 
four-year Bachelor of Education graduates have 
taken their fifth-year accreditation practicum at 
a neighboring public university. And TWU 
argued successfully that the College of Teachers 
had no concrete evidence that its existing 
alumni have ever discriminated against homo-
sexual public school students. 
The case was the first real test of the bound-
ary between religious freedom and "sexual orien- 
Owens believes 
his case is clearly a 
COLLISION 
between religious 
freedom and sexual 
orientation rights. 
26 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
tation" rights, since sexual orientation was "read 
into" the Canadian Charter of Rights and 
Freedoms by the Supreme Court some four years 
ago. So as the issue moved from trial court to the 
Court of Appeals and Supreme Court, it attracted 
intervenors such as the Canadian Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, the Evangelical Fellowship of 
Canada, the Seventh-day Adventists, and even the 
Canadian Civil Liberties Association on the side 
of TWU. And the Ontario Secondary School 
Teachers' Federation and EGALE (Equality for 
Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) waded in on the 
side of the BCCT. 
In the end the Supreme Court ruled that stu-
dents from a sectarian education could qualify for 
public employment. The court upheld the right of 
the BCCT to question whether any university's 
practices did indeed uphold the social objectives 
of public education. But it also ruled that the 
question could be answered only by reference to 
concrete evidence of bigotry or discrimination. 
"Neither freedom of religion nor the guarantee 
against discrimination based on sexual orienta-
tion is absolute the court's majority ruled. 
"The proper place to draw the line is gener-
ally between belief and conduct. The freedom to 
hold beliefs is generally broader than the free-
dom to act on them. Absent concrete evidence 
that the training teachers at TWU fosters dis-
crimination in the public schools of British 
Columbia, the freedom of certain individuals to 
adhere to religious beliefs while at TWU should 
be respected. Acting on those beliefs, however, is 
a different matter. If a teacher in the public 
school system engages in discriminatory con-
duct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary 
proceedings before the BCCT." 
TWU's executive vice president Guy Saffold, 
in charge of the school's legal campaign, said the 
court's decision was "critical for democracy;' 
because it affirmed that "in our multicultural 
and multifaith society, people cannot be arbi-
trarily penalized or barred from participating in 
public life simply because they hold religious 
views .. .. The BCCT was only able to cite vague 
suspicions and stereotypes to justify its position. 
Such stereotypes are anathema to our laws and 
themselves amount to discrimination." 
There is some disagreement, however, on the 
question of whether the Supreme Court decision 
really entails the free public expression of religious 
beliefs. And the outcome of cases such as Owens' 
and Brockie's depends on whether the court itself 
will interpret the TWU decision as doing so. 
Giving the optimistic interpretation, lain 
Benson, director of the Ottawa-based Center 
for Cultural Renewal, said that the TWU ruling 
was far more significant than the homosexual 
activists let on. 
"Big sigh of relief," Benson said. "With an 8-
1 majority this is a very significant decision and 
a very important victory for freedom of religion 
in Canada." 
Canada's homosexual activists have been 
engaged in a legal campaign, funded by the fed-
eral government's Court Challenges program, to 
"deny the right to affirm publicly . . . 
the traditional family," Benson said. 
And in a series of legal challenges to 
parental authority over school cur-
riculum, the freedom of commercial 
transactions, inheritance rights, and 
the legal definition of marriage, they 
have made a great deal of progress. But 
now, Benson suggested, the court has 
affirmed that religious freedom 
includes not merely the right to believe 
privately, but also—in the words of its 
1985 Big-M Drug Mart decision—the 
right to "manifest, disseminate, and 
teach" those beliefs. 
However, the conservative group 
REAL Women of Canada sounded a 
much more pessimistic note. REAL 
Women national vice president and 
counsel Gwen Landolt found the Supreme Court's 
distinction between "broader freedom of belief" 
and "narrower freedom of action" a troubling one. 
And it saw a veiled threat in the court's statement 
that if TWU teachers later discriminate against gay 
students, they "can be subject to disciplinary pro-
ceedings before the BCCT." 
So even though the court affirmed the right 
of a religious institution to its "private" reli-
gious beliefs, Landolt sees no reason to assume 
that it will extend that right to the public 
expression of those beliefs. And in Owens' case 
(publishing an ad critical of homosexuality) or 
in Brockie's (refusing a commercial contract 
implicitly affirming homosexuality), it is con-
duct that is at stake. The court would have to 
allow not merely freedom of religious belief 
critical of homosexuality, but freedom of public 
conduct equally critical. And with the exception 
of its 16-year-old Big-M Drug Mart decision, 
the court has given no indication that it intends 
to go that far in disappointing its favorite 
"oppressed minority," those with alternative 
"sexual orientations," and permit genuine pub- 
lic pluralism, secular, and religious. �
17,n. 
The freedom 
to hold beliefs 
is generally broader 
than the 
FREEDOM 
to act on them. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 27 
nvest in 
Continued from page 15 
continued to recesive letters of warning and ver-
bal threats of termination. 
"Even after we lost the administrative hear-
ing we continued to look for ways for her to get 
accommodated," says Al-Haddad. "Then in 
1999, two years after we lost the administrative 
hearing, the supervisor who had arbitrarily 
changed her schedule was removed from the 
postal facility. When that happened we saw an 
overall change in attitude, though not an imme-
diate change in schedule:' 
A new supervisor arrived, and things began 
to look up. Gardner-Ihrig was told that her 
request not to be scheduled during the Sabbath 
would be accommodated if she would work 
only an occasional Sabbath. 
"They kept insisting that I work on Sabbath," 
Gardner-Ihrig says. "They said, 'Just once a 
month and we'll work something out the other 
Sabbaths: I said, 'I can't do it even once a month. 
That's compromise. You don't compromise what 
you believe. You either do it or you don't." 
Meanwhile, the religious liberty staff at the 
Southern Union Conference discovered some-
thing helpful. "We found a federal office man-
agement policy that reaffirmed her ability to get 
Sabbaths off," says Al-Haddad. "We presented 
that to the Post Office, to her new supervisor, 
again asking for Sabbath accommodation. It 
was as easy to give her Sabbaths off as it was to 
take Sabbath away. It was up to the supervisor." 
In September 1999 Gardner-Ihrig was called 
into her supervisor's office and given a letter. It 
promised that she would have no Friday night 
or Saturday work, and that all the negative 
warning memos and attendance reports would 
be removed from her permanent record. 
Since then things have been going along fine, 
though Gardner-Ihrig says she doesn't feel they 
will ever be fully resolved. "With continued 
automation I will probably have another bout if 
I am there long enough?' she says. But at least 
now she knows what to do. "I'll do exactly the 
same things I've been doing." 
Religious liberty is a slippery animal. Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, "The 
term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious 
observance and practice, as well as belief, unless 
an employer demonstrates that he is unable to 
reasonably accommodate to an employee's or 
prospective employee's religious observance or 
practice without undue hardship on the con-
duct of the employer's business." Exactly what 
that means, however, is open to interpretation. 
But it's worth standing up and fighting for. 
"You can't compromise," says Gardner-
Ihrig softly. "You must hold fast. To do that you 
must have a good relationship with God, 
because He's going to be the only one there for 
you at times." 
BER T Y 
WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCREASE 
your income while at the same time give to a special work? Liberty magazin 
has a Gift Annuity Program designed to help you meet your specific 
financial needs as well as enable you to contribute to the important cause oj 
religious freedom. For more information about this program or how you 
can include Liberty in your will, write to: 
Liberty Magazine Gift Annuity Program 
General Conference Trust Services 
12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600. 
Or call (301) 680-5003 or (301) 680-5005. 
The above phone numbers are solely for the gift annuity program. 
For subscription information or address change, please see page 29. 
28 LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2 0 0 1 
LETTERS 
"Negative Entities" 
I noticed you didn't have a let-
ters section in the January/Febru-
ary 2001 issue. 
Anyway, I would like your opin-
ion on this: Is it valid to ban any 
cult that openly advocated actual 
worship (not just as metaphor) of 
negative entities ("demons") and 
sacrifices to them? 
DAVID BROCK, 
Portland, Oregon 
Certainly, speaking from a 
Christian perspective, I would find 
such a cult abhorrent! However, 
in a pluralistic society, committed 
to religious freedom for all, we 
cannot act against a belief just 
because it offends us. If any 
group advocates practices that are 
clearly dangerous—such as child 
sacrifice—then we have laws to 
prohibit these acts. But a "ban" 
against particular religion does 
threaten the religious liberty of 
all—and run directly against the 
Constitution. 
Letters—sorry, they get 
squeezed out now and then. 
Please keep sending them, and 
we'll print your comments. Editor. 
No Intrusion 
In an article on charitable 
choice (January/February, 2001) 
you state, and I quote: 
"In the larger scheme of things, 
charitable choice is just another 
skirmish in the longstanding battle 
over the proper relationship 
between church and state. The 
best outcome of this skirmish 
would be a stern reminder of the 
continuing importance of the sepa-
ration of church and state. 
"In the social services area, as 
in other areas, church/state dis- 
putes arise, the separation of 
church and state continues to 
serve three functions essential to 
the preservation of religious lib-
erty: it ensures that the govern-
ment will not be controlled by reli-
gious groups; it ensures that 
churches will not be controlled by 
the government; and it ensures 
that individuals will remain free to 
decide for themselves the direc-
tion of their spiritual quests." 
I could not disagree with you 
more strongly. The constitutional 
provision for separation of church 
and state was to keep the church 
out of the administration of the 
state, not the other way around, as 
you are trying to propose. History 
is replete with the excess of the 
church when it comes to ruling as 
if it were the state. I am against 
all intrusion of the state into any 
religion, and more important, I am 
diametrically opposed to any—I 
repeat, any—intrusion by any reli-
gion into the government. 
ROBERT F. HANNA, e-mail 
Free to Disagree 
I appreciate receiving the 
Liberty periodical. 
I am suggesting that you pro-
cure a copy of the book 
Reclaiming the Lost Legacy, by Dr. 
James Kennedy, Ph.D. a scholarly 
refutation of your contention of 
the separation of church and state. 
DONALD E. MCCLINTOCK, 
Cherry, Illinois 
Dr. Kennedy is one of the fore-
most proponents of a revisionist 
view of history which attempts to 
redefine the past in an overtly 
Christian nation mold. Editor. 
Liberty Appreciated in 
New Zealand 
I love Liberty magazine, despite 
its virtually exclusive American fla-
vor. We, in other parts of this 
shrinking global village, do under-
stand that America is where the 
real action is. 
I'm not surprised at the num-
bers of people embracing Seventh- 
Day Adventism round the globe, 
considering the history of your 
church's teaching. While most 
churches have changed many of 
their beliefs, over the past century 
and a half, Seventh-day Adventist 
publications, including Liberty, are 
still advancing the same vital prin-
ciples. 
JOHN WALLACE, 
Kaikohe, New Zealand 
The Liberty editors reserve the 
right to edit, abbreviate, or excerpt 
any letter to the editor as needed. 
Moving? 
Please notify us 4 weeks in advance 
Name 
Address (new, if change of address) 
City 
State �
Zip 
New Subscriber 
ATTACH LABEL HERE for address change or 
inquiry. It moving, list new address above. 
Note: your subscription expiration date 
(issue, year) is given at upper right of label. 
Example: 0301L1 would end with the third 
(May/June) issue of 2001. 
To subscribe to Liberty check rate below 
and fill in your name and address above. 
Payment must accompany order. 
K 1 year $6.95 
Mail to: 
Liberty subscriptions, 55 West Oak Ridge 
Drive, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740 
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES 
The God-given right of religious liberty is best exercised 
when church and state are separate. 
Government is God's agency to protect individual rights and 
to conduct civil affairs; in exercising these responsibilities, offi-
cials are entitled to respect and cooperation. 
Religious liberty entails freedom of conscience: to worship 
or not to worship; to profess, practice, and promulgate religious 
beliefs, or to change them. In exercising these rights, however, 
one must respect the equivalent rights of all others. 
Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the inter-
ests of each, subversive of human rights, and potentially perse-
cuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is 
not only the citizen's duty but the essence of the Golden Rule—to 
treat others as one wishes to be treated. 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 29 
I B E R TY 
Clarence E. Hodges 
Chairman, Editorial Board 
Lincoln E. Steed 
Editor 
Vikki Montgomery 
Associate Editor 
Snehlatha Bathini 
Administrative Assistant 
James A. Cavil 
Copy Editor 
Eugene Hsu 
Jan Paulsen 
Don C. Schneider 
B. B. Beach 
John Graz 
Consulting Editors 
Vernon Alger 
Amireh AI-Haddad 
Charles Eusey 
Samuel Green 
Greg Hamilton 
Nathaniel Higgs 
Darrel Huenergardt 
Ralph Janes 
Diana Justice 
Brad Newton 
Robert Patterson 
Alan Reinach 
Mitchell A. Tyner 
Consultants 
Jeffrey L. Dever 
Art Director 
Byron Holly 
Designer/Production 
Kenneth W. Osborn 
Treasurer 
Liberty (ISSN 0024-2055) is pub-
lished bimonthly by the North 
American Division of the Seventh-
day Adventist Church, 12501 Old 
Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 
20904-6600. Periodicals postage 
paid at Hagerstown, MD. 
POSTMASTER send changes of 
address to Liberty, P.O. Box 1119, 
Hagerstown, MD 21741-1119. 
Copyright © 2001 by the North 
American Division. 
Printed by the Review and Herald 
Publishing Association, 55 West 
Oak Ridge Drive, Hagerstown, MD 
21741-1119. Subscription price: 
U.S. $6.95 per year. Single copy: 
U.S. $1.50. Price may vary where 
national currencies differ. 
Vol. 96, No. 6, November/December 
2001. 
 
 EDITORIAL 
�
September 11, 2001: a great 
horror is visited upon the United 
States and the entire civilized 
world. We watched it blossom into 
wicked flame high in a cloudless 
sky and then collapse in a moan-
ing menace to life as we knew it. It 
replays itself on television 
screens and in millions of minds. 
Brave flags fly in the searing 
winds of change. But where are 
we bound? 
I returned home that evening, 
numbed by the enormity of what I 
had witnessed, but anxious that 
Christopher, my three-and-a-half-
years-old son should not have to 
look into such a dark pit. 
Christopher does not watch televi-
sion at all, other than an occa-
sional carefully screened cartoon 
at bathtime. I knew that my wife 
had turned the set on briefly as 
the tragedy unfolded, but she said 
he was playing by himself and 
seemed not to be watching. When 
I came home the first thing he 
said was "Daddy, there's been big 
bombs in buildings!" He knew. I 
made a mild reply and we went on 
to the usual play before bedtime. 
Sunday, September 16, we 
attended the annual Sharpsburg 
festival, held at the little town in 
the middle of the Antietam battle-
field park—site of the bloodiest bat-
tle of the Civil War. On the way 
there, as we paused at a traffic 
light, Christopher suddenly said "I 
want to talk to that man." From his 
booster seat perch he buttoned the 
window down and leaned out 
toward the pickup parked next to 
us. "Excuse me, sir," he trilled in 
childish tones. The man looked 
over at him. 
"There's been bombs, fires in 
buildings ..." said Christopher 
with his usual animation. The man 
nodded. There was a pause. Then 
Christopher said "Are you sad?" It 
was more of a statement than a 
question. "Yes, I am very sad," 
said the man. 
On our cover this issue is a 
sad-eyed lady Liberty. Yes, we 
have had our shocks and sorrows 
before: the anguish of civil war, a 
Great Depression, presidents 
assassinated, citizens and soldiers 
held hostage, murdered and 
defiled by howling mobs. But the 
scale of this latest act, the symbol-
ism of the targets and the realiza-
tion that we have been violated in 
our own home has been devastat-
ing. And while we weep for the 
lost and their families, so much of 
the grief is for ourselves. The 
priest poet Gerald Manley Hopkins 
wrote in his 1918 poem to a 
young child tearful at the loss of 
foliage in the fall, "It is Margaret 
you mourn for." 
And in the aftermath so much 
rage and blame setting. 
One Christian leader appeared 
on national television and said 
"God is angry with America. We 
must put religion back into our 
government." Let us not fall for 
that version of God. It is too remi-
niscent of the mind-set which 
produced the terrorists and the 
regimes which support them. 
Jesus himself, when asked to 
comment on those who had 
recently died in the fall of a tower 
in Siloam, asked "Do you think 
that they were worse offenders 
Keep the Faith, 
IBERTY! 
30 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 
than all the others who dwelt in 
Jerusalem? I tell you No," he 
assured them (Luke 13:5), while 
reminding them that all men 
should repent of their selfish ways 
and follow him. 
In a fine opinion piece written 
days after the terrorist acts, Chuck 
Colson quoted from this passage; 
calling it a "hard saying" of Jesus. 
But it is not problematical at all in 
context. Jesus was discussing the 
coming of his Kingdom and the 
need to prepare. He dismissed the 
idea of such incidents as signs of 
God's personal malice. But he did 
enjoin his listeners to be sensitive 
to the times. And he did promise 
security amid crisis. Earlier, dur-
ing the same teaching session, he 
said "Fear not, little flock, for it is 
your father's good pleasure to give 
you the kingdom." 
Since I travel hours each day 
to get to work, I listen a lot to C- 
SPAN and other programs that 
allow call-in opinions. In the 
aftermath of the attacks, caller 
after caller said they would will-
ingly give away freedoms to gain 
security. Curiously, it was an 
Arab-American who has lived 
most of his life here who called in 
and tried to call a halt to such 
talk. "It is an oxymoron to give up 
freedom to protect freedom," he 
reminded. But the howls for con-
trol and intrusion rise with each 
passing day. 
The founding fathers could 
scarcely have imagined the tech-
nological colossus targeted by 
the terrorists. But we sell short 
the experience of men who lived 
to see the upheavals of the 
French Revolution and their grasp 
on the essential nature of free-
dom if we think Liberty can be 
bargained away in a devil's pact 
to "protect" it. 
I think of Thomas Jefferson's 
powerful reminder given during 
his First Inaugural Address, March 
4, 1801. He pointed to "Freedom 
of religion, freedom of the press, 
and freedom of persons under the 
protection of habeas corpus, and 
trial by juries. These principles," 
he maintained, "form the bright 
constellation which has gone 
before us, and guided our steps 
through an age of revolution and 
reformation ... and should we 
wander from them in moments of 
error or alarm, let us hasten to 
retrace our steps and to regain the 
road which alone leads to peace, 
liberty, and safety." 
Yes, this surely qualifies as a 
"moment of alarm." 
The Sharpsburg festival, next to 
the silent sentinels of the Antietam 
conflict and the civil war trauma, 
was a heartwarming few hours 
amid the prevailing sorrow. It was 
a step back into the basic good-
ness and uncomplicated love of 
freedom that characterizes 
America. Street stalls sold funnel 
cakes and popcorn, freshly ground 
wheat and various home crafts. 
Many people had dressed up in 
the homespun "finery" of another 
era. Folk bands played aching 
songs of immigrants and their 
search for freedom. 
It was a scene festooned with 
flags, children and bantering small 
talk. But no moment was more 
revealing than when "Abraham 
Lincoln" stood up and presented 
the Gettysburg Address—with a few 
modifications to apply it to the trial 
of the moment. My spine tingled 
to hear again of "a new nation, 
conceived in Liberty." And even 
without adjustments, when Lincoln 
said "Now we are ... testing 
whether that nation or any nation 
so conceived and so dedicated, 
can long endure," I heard our cry 
for help. I can only pray that "this 
nation, under God, shall have a 
new birth of freedom—and that 
government of the people, by the 
people, for the people, shall not 
perish from the earth." 
LIBERTY NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2001 31 
On January 1, 1802, in response to the letter from the Danbury Baptist Association, Thomas Jefferson wrote: 
B
elieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes 
account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach 
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole 
American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state. 
Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see 
with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, 
convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties." 
o91-D— 
THE 
EXCH 
The Danbury Baptist Association, concerned about religious liberty 
in the new nation, wrote to President Thomas Jefferson on October 
7, 1801. Baptists in Danko); Connecticut, were persecuted because 
they were not part of the Congregational establishment in that state. 
0 
 ur sentiments are uniformly on the side of 
religious liberty. That religion is at all times 
and places a matter between God and indi-
viduals. That no man ought to suffer in name, person, 
or effects on account of his religious opinions. That''` 
the legitimate power of civil government extends no 
further than to punish the man who works ill to his 
neighbor. But Sir our constitution of government is 
not specific. Our ancient charter together with the 
laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the 
basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; 
and such had been our laws and usages, and such still 
are; that religion is considered as the first object of leg-
islation; and therefore what religious privileges we 
enjoy (as a minor part of the state) we enjoy as favors 
granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowl-
edgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek 
after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion should reproach their fellow men—should 
reproach their chief magistrate, as an enemy of religion law and good order because he will not, dare not assume 
the prerogatives of Jehovah and make laws to govern the kingdom of Christ."