GROWING THREATS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

One of the themes that has defined America is religious liberty. In the early colonies such freedom was rare. Until the birth of America, State churches were the norm. The first amendmentwas disigned to protect the people from a national church. Even as the first amendment was drafted there were still state churches in existence. Eventually state churches disappeared as state constitutions followed the lead of the national government. The first amendment was intended to free the conscience from government dictate. We can argue about whether denominations are good or bad, but we can agree that without a first amendment, such would be virtually impossible.

Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".

For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.

We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.

The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).

What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.

About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.

Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.

Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.

The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.

Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:

"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)

It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.

These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.

If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!

I have a bit of senior anxiety

We senior citizens are a bit nervous about the new health care proposals. We have been assured that "death panels" and the like are simply the rabid venom of the radical right. Maybe so, but I think it may be working for I still feel uneasy. Maybe as we grow older we grow more neurotic, but still....

Just when I was about to say "yes we can" to the wonderful new world of life and freedom from anxiety, I read Jim Towey's article on "The Death Book for Veterans" which appears on the online web-site of the Wall Street Journal. He writes that President Bush was forced to intercede and discontinue the publication of a Veterans Administration workbook entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" which was first published in 1997. The book was authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. The workbook leads veterans to ask and answer for themselves various questions such as " would life be worth living if "you can't shake the blues" or if you're a severe financial burden on your family?". Pearlman in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v Quill before the Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

In July of this year, under the Obama Administration, the VA re-introduced a revised version of "Your Life, Your Choices". The Care Providers are encouraged to point not only the older veterans to the publication, but all 24 million veterans. The publication is to be used in discussion of "advanced directives". Only one organization is referred to as a resource for such end of life planning and that is the notorious "Hemlock Society" (now known as "Compassion and Choices").

Mr Towey is President of Saint Vincent College and is also founder of "Aging with Dignity". I and some of my friends are very much in favor of being allowed to "age with dignity" and as a result, we get a bit nervous when healthy, wealthy middle aged folks, whom we have never met may be deciding whether its feasible to treat our cancer or provide a life prolonging heart surgery. Maybe for the sake of the economy and more deserving middle aged folks, we should decide to die. Maybe morphine can be sold over the counter and nitro glycerin provided in our cereal. Such would surely be a social benefit and more cost effective. Maybe those birthers can find me a new birth certificate, showing my age as 40. Or maybe the State could just lose my birth certificate and the government couldn't prove me to be ----. You didn't really expect me to give my age, did you?

READ, REFLECT AND RESPOND

In recent weeks there has been angry debate over the proposal for healthcare reform in America. The reform being discussed would likely offer a public option of a government directed health plan. We've heard the debate and the pros and cons of each side. However, the problem is that there is no legislation that has been brought to the floor of Congress. Various committees and groups have presented proposals, but no definitive bill. In a country where smart people with computers exist, why can congress not propose a definitive bill, and then submit it to public discussion. Publish the bill on the Congress website and let those who are interested read the bill. This might take three weeks. Then after having time to read it, let the people communicate with their representatives and senators concerning their views and suggestions. Maybe this period of reflection and response could last another three weeks. Then after these combined six weeks, Congress could debate and vote.

Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.

Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.

Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.