LIBfRTY - Andrews

A MAGAZINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

LIBfRTY (bllp:/lwww.hllertymapzine.org/)

Navigation

EIIIAL(IMILTO:? MCEBOOK TWII11R(HTTP:�IIIIHOIE? GOGGLe. IUB.IEII:floiEPTBIBERIOC:TOBER ... TPII:IMWIU'AC:EBOOKA:OIIIIIIIIf..IIIBUIHARl. 111'1181tf111':/IWWVIU.IIERniiiAGAZINE.ORGII !tiiUU ..... OOGLEI:O�

.;.;,4UODY�.MWWW.I..IIERniiAOAZIIE.CI T ·- I I'IIIAGAZit�BIR- OC10aaw.t4) o:RLooHnP...IIMMLI�E.ORCMIII OCTOBER-»�.. OCJOIIER-IG1•) OCTOIIER-at4)

Off With Their Heads (http://wwwJibertymagazine.org/artide/off-with-their-heads)

Religioua freedom haa never been more needed 1lum. now. The fleeing colWDDB of Christian

refugees atteat to it& lack

The Long Journey to Religious Freedom (http://www.libertymagazine.org/articlelthe-long-journey-toreligious-freedom) Every promoter and defender of religious fteedom should ODCe in a while visit a few historical sites related to the 911Ugle. It will inspire them. This is ...

Beck to Top

(l''l 'I' IB!w:IJ ' I •• J' t .. b k ' ttj)

�-lldio-111�11111--•nb'--lllllor.-10

wlaDif•)b1"14b7flllltariW<WJII"'&D"fd'o «'' ;] •..t .......... UtW...,.

jollioo.lllliRlb allllo--'lllial, ilpon.iloaiiiiiD41rillloatWomida ... jn"'

bllla q d "'wcdl.

,.. .....



Navigation

Published i11 tile September/Octobu 2014 {htlp:llwww.libertym�Jgtlzi11e.twg&suelaeptember-october-2014) Magazine

EditorliJI, by Li11coln E. Steed (http:/lwww.�e.org/authorRI11coln-e.-ateed)

EMAL (IIMILTD:?IUII.ECT=OFF WIIH IW:EBODK TWirTBl(HTTP:#nlllnBU:OIIIIHOIIE.? GOGGLE+ TIEIR r 'IN:/IWMU'ACEDOOK.COMIIIIARERIIHARi ..........-n>:MMili.8Eit!'tMAGAZINE.ORGil fi T--..&.UUOOOLE.COIIIIIIAIIE?

;..diDifiiiOD'/IIMJ1li:IIWIMIItL�I I �AZIIE..DRCIIARTlCLI:IIOFF- wmt-TIEIIUI&ADSJ o:lll.ooHnP'..IIWMilLIBERniiAGAZIIE..DIUIIN WIJH•THEIWEADIJ WIJH•1HER-HEAD41) JIITK.THBIWEADII)

The late Cbristopher Hitchens got a lot of mileage out oflayiDg blame for most of the world's atrocities at the door of religion. I know he expected to vanish

into the c:osmoa at deatb, but recent images out of Iraq would surely c:cmJure up IIIOM of his ire ifnotbiDg else. It docs seem 88 if violent Rligicm has escaped

from rationality yet again. After all, how can we explain the You'I'IIbe beheadmg of an Americanjoumalist, lilrely performed by an Engliah citizen? How can

we see aaything but aiclmeu in the crucifixion of ChriBt:iaiUI and odlera by jiluldiat warrior&?

I have some ae:rioua differences with the euy caricature of religion tbat Hitchens would beUow at cowed defenders of the faith during hia maoy debatea. But

the ISIS phenomenon doea put into serious question the comfortiDg notion held by some killdly souls that aU one needs to do iD dealing with daqerous

religious expression is to find the moderates. Most religions have a word for moderates when their fai1h is under stress 81ld it is usually a word havillg to do

wi1h apostasy, Dot true belief. I notice that the ISIS activists call moderate or non-supporting Moslems "hypocrites ... After aU, most faiths req_uire

wholehearted c:ompliance. The goda are seldom ��atisfied with part-time wmshippem.

It was not immediately obvious iD the paDicked clays after 9/11 but an entiie faith CODIIIIUIIity is stiniDg globally. At fim the problem was c.hara&:taized as a

small band of fanatical tmvrista who were aliCD to lalam. Then the laoguage abi.fted to ctilllllisaiDg the growing opposition to state iDtcrveDtion 88 "dead

endera.'' ADd while we still try to split hairs between the clifl'erent fimdam.entalilt filctions that battle Auad iD Syria and trouble the globe from IDdoneaia to

Nigeria it is time to aclmowledge this for a phenomenon of religioD; not just teJIOrism or political agitation.

After the religious awakenillg iD Burope that characterized what we know 88 the Reformation, the resulting religious rivalriea and political teDsions that

accompanied them erupted imo what was known as the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). Before that time the Westem Christian world lived through a long

pc:riod when Roman Catholicism was not only the mmwlitlW: :religious fon:e, but also exerc:iaed sovcreipty over secular rulen as the inheritor of the Roman

imperial power. Closer to the Reformation this :relilio-political UDion attcmpll:d to mnveot itself 88 the Holy R.omim Empire.

While it can be horribly misleading to simplistically match one era with anodler, I 1hink: it not totally unwamnted to see this religio-political Christian power

as the functional equivalent to the glory days of Islam under the Caliphate last based in '1'111by. When this '"'Christian Caliphate" was tlm::atened by the

Refunoation, the IeSUlting war was long and bitter. While our modem wars have killed tens of millions, the devastation of the Thirty Years War was cxlreim:.

Armies denuded the landscape. Famine and disease ravaged the populations of Germany, the Italian States, Bohemia and the Low Countries, and a number of

nations were bankrupted.

Something interestiDg came out the Thirty Years War. Yes, the integrity of Lutheranism was guaranteed. But it was also a victory that enabled the �f

&ith in the Chriatian west and led to many ather Protestaut movements, and not Ullllll"priaingly to a aerioua reexamination of itaelfby the Roman Catholic

Church. The aggressive COUDtc:r-RetbJmation mden:d by the Council of'I'reDt (1545-63) slowly gave way to a more nmJ politic approach to 1he I1CW wwld

order that :linally resulted in the reforms of Vatican II; which came to grips wi.dl. the separation of church and atate and a need to respect the sovereign rights of

the individual to chooae hill or her own spiritual identity.

But what especially came out of the Treaty of Westphalia was a new political order, based on the concept of a sovereign state. This has been seen as the

precursor to our modern intc:mationallaw. And if you have been watching TV of late you will have noticed that ISIS (Islamic Caliphate of Iraq and Syria--or

more accurately the Levant/eaatem Mediterranean) spreads across several states and various representatives have stated that they will swallow up Turkey and

beyond till its flag flies over Washington D.C.!! Their yearning for the global Caliphate is not only real but hardly shrinks from the absolutist religious control

this predicates.

That Washington scenario seems vmy unlikely unless we start allowing Sharia law enclaves in our Levant More likely is a new Thirty Years War within

Islam and with the Christian West. Past Defense Secretary Rmnsfeld, of the "unknown UDknowns," once said the war on terror would last a lifetime. He was

probably right.

What is at play within the Middle East and soon the entire world is the old Gordian bot of religious sovereignty. Is the individual free to choose his or her

own faith? Is a religious power free to mandate the bebavior of a secular state? Is there such a thing as a state free of religious controls? And does a state have

the right of aovereignty; and a right to be free from outside interference--e in the name of law and order, or in matters of religious behavi�

Religious freedom has never been more needed than now. The fleeing columna of Christian refugees attEst to i111lack. The butchered worshippers at a Shiite

Mosque should have had safety if �:hem= wexe 1rue :n=ligious freedom. The matter as alwaya is Will we allow JlCIIiOilal &ith to flourish? Will we resist those

who would compel their faith view? Will we guard the sovereign lines of deman:ation between church and state. If not, the age-old Caliphate might just be

driving down our highway.

Author: Lincoln E. Steed (http://www.libertymagazine.orglauthorllincoln-e.-steed) Lincoln E. Steed is the editor of Liberty magazine, a 200,000 circulation religious liberty jaumal which is dis1n"buted to political leaders, judiciary, lawyeis

and other thought leaders in North America. He is additionally the host of the weekly 3ABN (http://3abn.mg) television sbow "The Liberty Insider," and the

radio program "Lifequest Liberty."

0 Comments UIHirty I A Mapr.ln1 of Rlllgloul F.-clom

• Racommend l!t 8hlle

• Start the discussion ... �

Be the first to comment.

Copyriabt C 2017 North AmllrieaD Diviaion of the Sevemb.-day AdveDiist Cllurch (ht1p:llwww.lllldadwalilt.orrf).

Liberty® ia a Hgillknd tradlmlrk of 'the Oclwal � Cuporlltion of S.wmdh-day AdvmiaiB ® (http:flwww.advclltist.org/).

Liberty ® (ISSN 0024-2055) ia pablillled 'bimomhly by tile N011h Amtrican Dtrilion of tile Seventh-day Adveatillt ClmrdL

8Loaln •

Sortby .......


LIBfRTY (http:Jiwww.libertymagujne.arg/)

'"

I � LH€l9NQ

JOURN�y -col\§LigiOUS FREEdOM

Navigation

The

Published in the September/October 2014 (http:/lwww.libertymagazine.org/issue/september-october-2014) Magazine

by John Graz (http://www.libertymagazine.orglauthorljohn-graz)

FACI:BOOK TWTTI:R (HTTP:IIrMTT!R.COIIIHO.., OOOOLI:+ I:IIIIAJL (MALT0:?8UBJI:CT"THI: LONG JOURNEY TO RELIGIOUS ''-'""TPS:1NNNI.FACEBOOK.COM/8HARERISHARf"'' ".lJIU8ottTTP:/INWWJ.IBERnNAOAZINE.OR�!'-iijiii&ILIPLUS.GOOGLE.COMISHARE?

f f �III&BODv-HTTP:n-.LIIIRTYMAGAl LONG.JOURNEY-TO-RELIGIOUS.

.. �NE.ORG/ARTIC' . • HEl.ONG.JOURNEY-TO.-._IGIOUS. •l;a.-HTTP:fiWWWLIBBn'YMAGAZINE.ORGIAF LONG.JOURNEY-TO-REUGIOUS. FREEDOM) LONG.JOURNEY-TO-RBJGIOUS.

FREEDOM) FREEDOM) FREEDOM)

Every promoter and defender of religious freedom should once in a while visit a few historical sites related to the struggle. It will inspire them. This is what

two dozen curious "pilgrims" transported on a big black tom bus did for for two weeks throughout ltaly, France, and Switzerland.

We began the tour with a threo-day visit in Rome. The theme could as easily have been

''From Persecution to Freedom of Religion to Persecution Again." Themes included

"Christians Under Persecution," ''The Edict of Milan in 313,"' "The Hope of a Society in

Which Freedom Would Have Been the New Cement of the Roman Empire," and "The New

Persecution by Christians."

From Rome we went to Geneva to retrace the steps mrule by the Humanists and Reformers

in favor of the separation of church and state and freedom of conscience. We saw clearly

how even as these beams of hope appeared, the darkness of intolerance still dominated those

times.

From Geneva we went to Torre Petlice to walk the mountain paths of the Waldensians. What

a moving experience to stay a few minutes in one of the caves in which they hid to survive the persecuting armies sent to wipe out their faith. They survived,

unlike the nearby Albigenses, who were exterminated.

Back to Top

Then we crossed the Alps

and drove through the

south ofFrance to

Montpellier on a search for

the story of the French

Huguenots. Both the

Waldensians and the

Huguenots had a common

ground: They were persecuted for several

centuries, and their only

plea was freedom of

conscience and religion. In

France, during a period of

two centuries, hundreds of

thousands of Protestants

were forced to leave their

counlry.

We visited the Tower of

Constance in the beautiful

medieval city of Aigues

Mortes, built by King

Saint Louis. The story of

Marie Durand has become

a symbol of all those who

were oppressed, arrested,

and executed for their faith. She was a teenager

when arrested in 1730. Her

brother Pierre was a

pastor, and as the

authorities did not find

him, they arrested his

sister. Two years later they

� Ill1191ratiOIIB by Sunga Park

caught him and hanged him in the public square. But Marie stayed in the Tower until1768. She did not recant, and wrote on a stone the word "'resistez,"

which means ''resist."

(http://www.irla.otgl).

From there we went to the "Musee of the Desert." It is located in a beautiful Huguenot

village. We visited the house of one of the leaders of the Camisards, who fought during two

years against King Louis XIV's armies.

The tour wrapped up in Paris where we picked up the story of freedom as it moved from the

Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572 to the Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights

adopted on December 10, 1948, Less than one mile from the Eiffel Tower. Religious freedom

is a precious and fragile gift. A gift we have to promote and protect Tours like this remind

us of the high price so many paid and continue to pay for freedom to practice their faith. We

have an obligation to keep on in our work in their memory.

Author: John Graz (http://www.libertymagazine.org/author/johngraz) John Graz is secretary-general of the International Religious Liberty Association

Back to Top

1 Comment Liberlr 1 A MaGazine of Religious Freedom

• Join the discussion ... �

Jam• • 2 yeo�rs ago

I think it is a very good idea to visit historicalsilea

relalEd to Religious Li�. I thiric it is even a better idea to understand wllat the term Religious l..ilerty is supposed to mean.

It Is supposed to mean only certain areas of the conscience

8LoSJin �

which concern issues of Blasphemy, Heresy, Worship, Apostasy, and Idolatry. Other issues which concern the conscience, while important do not fall under the rubric of Religious Uberty.

Mlstaldrc� the dlffarence can clearly be seen ., cases l(e Hobby Lobby, and Smith v Oregon. The issue in these disputes concern the conscience of perscns CNer contraceptives/ abortion and uee of ctuga (peyote). Relgious people should be cmscientious aver evaylhing. but every conscientious thing is not religious.

A mlsunderatancllng of wllat lnla Religious Lllerty Is can lead to its destruction. " v • Rsply • Share >

l!i!l lunc.tiMI 8 Add DJ.quo to your ... Add Dloq•Add Q ""-r

Copyright C 2017 North American Division of the SevenCII.-day Adventilt Olureh (http-Jfwww..ll8dadwllliltorgl).

Liberty� ifl a ftSilllered trademark of the General Conferenlle Corporati011 of Seventh-day Adventim II (http://www.adval.tiat.oral).

Liberty® (ISSN �2055) ia publillhed bimoDibly by the Nanh Amsi.C&D Diviliaa of the Sevcth«y .Advmtht Clmn:h.

BatoTop



Navigation

Published i71 the September/October 2014 (http:/lwww.libertym1Jgozi71e.D11¢ssuelaeptember-october-2014) Magazine

by Stephen Allred (http:/lwww.libenymiJgazine.mg/authorlatephen-allred)

'I!IMIL (MALT0:71UBJEII:fllfREBJOIII f • -..eROOIIIUO�.IIWWW.I.8ERniiAI

C:I..A88ROOIII)

IW:EBOOK 11111111BliHTTP:IInlllnBU:OIIIIHOIIE.? GOOGLE+ II" I s ·-·-'WIIIARERIIHARi �MMIU.8ERI'tMAGAZINE.ORGII f;.IW&-..aOOOLE.COIIniiAIIE? J mP...IIWWIIIUBIIIniiAGAZitE..DRDIAimCI..IoiFREEDOII- CLAIIIRODII) o :��.o�HnP'..IIWWIIIII.IIIIIniiAGAZitE..OIUWU

CLAIIROOII) CLMIROOM)

Ellen G. White. one of the founders of the Sevcmlh-day Advemut Church, believed that young people could change the world More than a century ago she

noted how rapidly the gospel of Jesus could be tabn to the world with au "BliDy" of rightly llained youth. 1 Jnc:identally, Ellen White wu ODI.y a teeuqer

herself� 17 years o�when she began 81ifctime ofChriltimmiDistry.

Advemials still believe tbat yotmg people CBD mel will change the world. It was this vision tbat iDspircd Norm Farley, 8 retired Adventist miDister, to develop

a plan whereby young people could become championa of religious treedom.IDJpired by the Presidential Cluaroom model, Farley Bet out to create 811imilar

program for Christian young people. He wanted a program that would educate top-quality students to undmtalld the roots of religious freedom and nurture

these young people to become thougbt leaders and advocates for h"baty of CODSC:ience. His vision was to pus the torch of religious freedom to the mext

generation, aDd 1his eventually led to something called Freedom Classroom.

Seventh-day AdveDtists see fieedom of CODSCi.e!IQe and religion u the wry core of the good news of the liberadon Christ brought md 1hmfore central to their

missiou. God is love, md becauae of that love He created h\lDillll beiDga with freedom to worship Him or not. Although freedom is oftm abused, God still

respecta the c:hoic:es of lEa creatmes to decide their ultimate destiny. Hence, Adventists have historically been advocates of freedom of coDIICimce for all,

religious mel nonreligious alike. They have ai.Jo advocated for separation between church and state, u history shoW& tbat uniting dle two inevitably leads to

freedom of conscience being violated.

Freedom Classroom: How It Works

What exactly is Freedom C8811J'001D? Norm Farley'• origiDal vision was for motivated and talented high school atudents to participate in 8 classroom

experience followed by an llDIUallO-day trip to visit Washillgtom, D.C.-area hUtorical sites, along with lectures and advocacy in the nation's capitall.:k to Top

In 2013 the Church State Council took the lead with Freedom Classroom and sponsored a trip to Washington, D. C., for several young people from the Pacific

Union Conference. Dennis Seaton. legislative director for the Church State Council, and Natalie Eva, legislative assistant, organized the trip. Alan Reinsch,

the Church State Council's executive director, led the trip along with a group of sponsors.

Reinach 's passionate belief in the mission of Freedom Classroom is evident. ''Reaching the youth is always critical for every cause," he notes. " The youth are

tomorrow's leaders, but they can also make a huge impact today. They have tremendous energy and enthusiasm, and are forming interests and habits that will

stay with them for a lifetime."

Reinach's personal passion for the mission of Freedom Classroom stems from his own experience as a young person. During his youth he was nurtured in the

civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, and the experience was a formative one. "We saw that the people really do have power to achieve great

things, despite the odds, and the forces arrayed against us," he recalls.

The Freedom Classroom Tour On June 11, 2013, a group of 17 young people and sponsors flew to Washington, D.C., for what would be a tightly scheduled 10 days of fun-filled learning.

On day 1 of the tour, the students were treated with a visit to Montpelier, James Madison's home on the outskirts of Orange, VIrginia. A young person himself

when his political career began, Madison has been called the "Father of the Constitution." He was instrumental in drafting the United States Constitution and

the Bill of Rights. During the tour of Madison's home, the students gave special attention to his authorship of the First Amendment, with its guarantee of

separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion.

Another document studied by the Freedom Classroom scholars at Madison's home was A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments that

Madison wrote in 1785 to the Commonwealth of VIrginia's General Assembly. In it Madison argued against clergy and religious teachers being paid with

public tax dollars. Madison, who in a few years would pen the words of the First Amendment, here delineated his views on what he meant by the phrase "an

establishment of religion." Perhaps one paragraph in Memorial and Remonstrance expresses his views most clearly. In it Madison wrote the following:

"If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact

have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority;

in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the

people .... A just ... Government needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion

with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those

of another. ''2

Another highlight of the trip included a visit to Thomas Jefferson's sprawling hilltop estate called Monticello. Jefferson was another key Founder whose

views also shaped America's religious liberty landscape. Although Jefferson was a proponent of personal and religious liberty, and despite his writings against

slavery, he was an enigmatic character in that he held more than 100 hundred enslaved persons at any given time at Monticello.

In Colonial Williamsburg the students encountered life as it was for the pre-Revolutionary colonists. Students were able to read parts of the VIrginia

Declaration of Rights, a document that proved to be a template for bills of right in other colonies. Colonist and lawyer George Mason, a forward-thinking

intellectual and proponent of religious freedom, authored the VIrginia Declaration of Rights in 1776. The Declaration's religion clause built upon John

Locke's seminal ideas concerning religious freedom, stating that "religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can

be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion,

according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man distUib the peace, the

happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other."3

On Saturday the students spoke for the early-morning service at the Seventh-day Adventist church in Manassas, Vllllinia. Each student expounded on a

Scripture text that related to freedom of conscience and shared a historical or personal story that helped the audience to understand how the scriptural

principle applies today. Alan Reinach spoke for the worship service. In his talk he highlighted religious freedom in the context of current societal trends and

Bible prophecy. He reminded the congregation that the moral and spiritual decay in society is primarily attributable to the church, not to Hollywood or the

nation's politicians, as it is the church that is responsible for building up spirituality in the world. "The church needs to repent and seek the Holy Spirit's

power," Reinsch noted, instead of seeking the power of the state to regenerate society.

In the afternoon, students had the opportunity to walk along the Washington Mall and visit the Smithsonian. An exhibit on slavery and the 1960s civil rights

movement captivated their attention. Freedom, the students learned, comes with a price. And many brave and visionary souls have sacrificed their lives in the

history of the American republic to purchase the freedom we enjoy today.

The nm day, &tudcnta toured Harpel'8 Fmy, where abolitionist John Brown'& raid on die� lll'lll01')' proved to be the 8p8lk !balled to the Civil War.

StudcntB wen:: alao able to Bit in the claarooma at Stun:r College, a one-time hia1mically Bllwk college. Thia waa an inatitutian w!M:re fomiA:r lllavea, who had

been forbidden to mui or write, leamecl how to do exaaly that ami� taqltt trades ami skill& dlat allowed them to become ilu:lqlendent member� of

IIOciety.

F1wdom Clusroom stade.nts were tbc:n able to tab part in the North Amt.rh:an Religious Liberty Aseoc:ialion's amrual rdigiou freedom summit ami lobby

day. Part of the utivilies involwd viaitiDg � ofiWes 8lld promoting HR. 301, a bill dlat diJected die PJeaident to appoint a BpCcial envoy within 11M:

Depll'lmmt of Sta1e to promote the religious tmdom ofrcligious minoritica in the Middlt But lllld South and Celdral.Asie. (Stud.eol81aler wa"C emled to

learn !hat die bill waa puacd by both houaes ofCongRu.)

Additionally, tbe Freedom Clusroom group waa pcioasly invited to Scute chaplain Barry Bllwk's office for a visit wid! the chaplaiD. Bllwk shared his

persoll8l story of advlmcillg to chief of chaplaiu in the United State:� Navy and fiDally to chaplain of die Uniled States SC!Iate. Bllwk also gave the studenls

three piece& of advU:e. Firat. he said, purpoee in your heart lib the prophet I>aiel DOt to de1ile younel£ Secoud, 1r1IBt God !or :fiwor with pcopk, and dJinl,

strive !or SCC�llmwe. Manl dmn cme trip participmt commsrted that the visit wid! the chap1ain was the highlight of1he whole Pmedmn Classroom trip.

The tour 1beD took lltlldemam the SUJifl.liiiC Court, whenl they leemed about die judicial

1mmch of our fedmal govammmrt. Studartl were also� to advoc:acy groups from

both sides of die aisle and briefed on dleir interpretation of c:urrem religious liberty 11114

social justice issues. Firllt, ltudmds wen� pciou!y hos1M by the American Center !or La.w

and Juati=, wh= they heard the Chr.istian Right's pcrapective on modem social and

niligious liberty ilsul!s 11114 WIRI able to intl!w:t 11114 ask qurions. The IIIIIXt day J. Bnmt

Walbr, aecutivc director of the Baptiat Joiat Commiuee Cor Re1igiou Liberty, hosted

speabn from the Ams:ic:an Civil Liberties Union, die Sikh Coalition, the Ammc:an Jewish

CoalitioD, and Amcricau UDiled for Scparalion of Church and State. The fltudcnta wen:: able

to bear tbe pmpectivcs of those on the politi<:al and qous left regatding niligiou hberty

isiUC8 of die day 11114 to Ilk questions. Sa1cllcl G=obqa, a Freedom Claaaoom lltudad

from Califomia, observed that the "in-depth convenations wilh prominart people abcnd

eum:nt iaw:e" made the tour a "unique llllld enriohing �."

The trip finale was a visit to the Holoeaut Museum, wbeie &tudcnts experienced a poipant

eJWDple of what happem wbel1 fteedom diea. Heinrich Heine's words writ1m on the wall of

the IIIUBeam-"WWl.eR books are bumed, ill the end people will be bamccl" --t'eiDfon:ecl to

studcnta the i:mpodant part 1hat knowledge llllld 1mth play in the llruggh: Cor CVCI)' liDd. of

freedom. Freedom Clanroom lltlldeol8left the Dl\l8CUIIl with the ameU of shoe leethcr from

thoiiSIIIIds of�etima' shoes linserins in Cheirnostrilii--HIIIiDdiDg atudaots of the awful

talness of dlis tragic and J:eQellt event

In m1la:ling on die trip, Deunis Seaton obllelVCd that the Freedom Classroom tour "wu 1111 IMdln lll1nilllll&l Il'l up 10 1blm.

opportunity for the am geoeration of young Seventh-day Adventists to \��demand that in order to have the fieedomJ we have u a Dation we mun be a Didion

that pnu:1il:es religious lDedom."

Freedom Classroom Today Since the fim trip ill l1Dle2013, Pmedmn Clas11100111 has evolved into much more 1han just an ammal tour. Spcmsored. by die Chun:h Stlllll CoUDCil, it bas

expalldcd to i=ludc 8lllllllllobby days for lltude:Dt8 of all grade levels 8lld educational visits to govemmcnt 1aWillllkua at the CaWDmia state capitol.

Bvcm with all the ehaDges, the original �sion for Freedom Classroom lives on. ".Defimding liberty of eoDSCience ill not just a noble cause--it is a causa that

tefleets the nature and c11aractcr of the Creator." notca Alan Reinach. "As Thomas JdfcrsOD wrote: 'Almighty God hath created the mind h.' ECe:mal

vigilance has always been the prU:e of liberty. This ill a lesson we hopo to 1each our yoldh tiJroush Freedom Classroom."

AJ the Clmrch State Council's Sacramento, Catifomia ofiWe, Dennis SeatoD 8lld Natelie Bva have provided opportunities for 5CO!\lll of yoUDg people to

become involved as advoeatl!a ofhoerty of conac:ienu. Lobby days have heal otpnized for atlldarts from Pacific Union College, who have lobbied. Cor bills

desJiDg with social justice iaBuet auch u humaD traftil:ling.

Additionall.y, since Freedom CWsmom.'s inceplion, four diffinnt Christian elmnentmy srhools have bm1J8bt groups of school children to visit state

legislatoft 8lld leam about how their� world. Jared Shipp. an elemartary sehoolatudeat liom Califimlia, was amazed 1hat students sut;l& a.;tl.w.

could llliiD a diffemK:e simply by sending letters and showing up. ADd that's not tbl! only diffeRIIce yo11D8 people make. Legislative llaffen at th .. �.:n f"P

fondly mnember the Chun:h State Council's Seaton as the guy who brings groups oflrids on visits. Seaton observes that while politicians may not always be

inclined to listen to adult&, young people certamly grab their attention.

Lea Gilbert, ofOakhunlt Adventillt Christian School, is one U:acher who brought her students to Sacramento for an educatiOIIIIl. visit. She CilCOUI'IIgCS all

Adventist schools to take advantage of the Fieedom Classroom cxperiem:c. '"Thanks again for all the 1hougbt and cffurt 1hat went into making our 1rip to

Sacramento a success, .. she oomments, "and for enlightening my students on the part 1hey can play in preserving religious hberty in our COIJirtey."

The Freedom Classroom of the Future What does the future hold for Freedom Classroom? Alan Reinach and Dennis Seaton are dreaming big and hope to see Freedom Classruom grow both in

numbers as well as in vision. ''Moving forward," Seaton says, "Freedom Classroom will continue to fmm. partnerships with scboola, chun:hcs, and

conferences to provide young people opportunities to be involved in religious liberty issues 1hat affect their CODIIIlUDities, states, and country. We will

encourage our YOUII8 people to meet with their elected officials seeking to form partnerships that will meet the needs of their communities."

Y01111g people are making a diffemwe today through Freedom Classroom. The torch of religious liberty is being cmied forward by youth who are catching

the vision. But what if you can't go on a Freedom Classroom trip---can you still make a difl'ereru:e in promoting h'berty of conscience? Absolutely, aays

Seaton. Among other tbingll, he I'CCOIIllllCild:

• fOIIIIiD& a local Nor1h Amcricllll. RdigiOWI Liberty AIBoc:iatiou dilpt«

• lo1lrillg yoar state's capitol and getting to know yuar eiemd officiala

• baviD& a local "lobby day" at your state capitol

• visiting local offic:ca of dected city, ��tate, md fedcnl offu:ia1a • be;omiog involwd in sac:ial justice i1111111 SDCh u lnmlaa lzllffickiDg, violenee in your IXJIIIIIlllllit, c:hildhood llwl&w. lk:.

Are you ready to get started with any of these ideas? Do you or a young penon you know want to be involved in Freedom Classroom? Ccmtact Natalie Eva at

the Sacramento Church State Council office at [email protected].

1. l!1lcm G. White, Edtlcarlo1J., (Mountllin View, Calit:; Plldfu Pn:8a Pub1ilhiDg A.m., 1903), p. 271. 2. http:l�lib. virginia.edu/and/Madisoa_m.tr_l7115.html.

3. lhlbert A Rutland, eel., The Papes of o--p M1111011, l72S-1792 (Cbapol. Hill, N.C.; Univenity of North Carolilla Press, 1970), vol. 1, p. 284.

Author: Stephen Allred (http:/ Jwww.libertymagazine.org/author/stephen-aUred) Stephen N. Allred writes from Yuba City, Califomia.

D Coml'l'*lbl UHrty I A Mllgazln• of bllglous Frwdom



Copyrisbt C 2017 North� Divilrion of the Sevemh·day AdvCDii8t O.un:h (httyJ/www�orsf). Liberty e it a ter;illllnd trademark of 'the Oeuens1 Couf«em:e Colporaticm of Sfielllh..day Adveutittii!P (hUp:flwww.llliwatilt.oql).

Liberty ® (ISSN 0024-2055) i& pablilllled bimOD!IJly by tho North Amfriam Dmsiou of tho Sevmlh-i!ay Adventillt Cmrdl.

8Loaln �

BatoTop



Navigation

Published in the September/October 2014 (http://www.libertym4gazine.org/JSsuelseptember-october-2014) Magazine

by Geleste Perrino-Walker (http:llwww.libertymagazine.org/author/celeste-perrino-walker)

�UIL (MAILTO:?SUBJECTooKNOWN FOR FACEIIOOK TMITER (HTTP:IIT'MTTER.COIIIHOIE"I GOOGLE+

I C riON&BOIJYioHTTP:IIWVIo'W.L8ERTYMAGAD ,- 7--IIIG..aOK.COMIIHARER/IIHAih JlllalottTTP:IIWWW.LIBERn'MAGAZINE.ORGIJ fi I_........._GOOGLE..COIIVSHARE?

FOR-ACTION) J lnP:UWWW:LIBERn'MAGAZINE.ORGIARTICLI:IKNOWN· FOR-ACTION) o)RI.=HTTI':-LIBERn'MAGAZINE.ORGIAF

FOR-ACTION) FOR-ACTION)

ABOVE: Claude Morgan. Associate Director of Church State Council (left) and John V. Stevens, Sr., Director of Church State Ccnmcil observe the signing of

conscience-exemption legislation by Califorma governor, Jerry Brown.

The Church State Council has worked tirelessly for 50 years to maintain religious freedom, despite relentless efforts by others to minimize that freedom and the wall of separation that protects it

Founded in 1964, the Church State Council was the brainchild ofR. R. Bietz, president of

the Pacific Union Conference (PUC) of Seventh-day Adventists, who recruited Warren

Johns, a young lawyer, to head it up. Seventh-day Adventists are committed to the preservation of religious freedom, and Bietz wanted an organization that could publicly be

identified with religious liberty. Originally formed in response to the proliferation of Sunday

laws in the 1960s, following the Supreme Court•s decision upholding such laws, the council

battled such laws in diverse places, including California, Utah, and Nevada, with

considerable success, believing such laws to violate the separation of chJ.m:h and state.

Since that time the mission of the council has expanded to combat many other assaults on

religious freedom. It is important to note that while many organizations are willing to help SCIIIItm Albert Rodda (c:eu!a") lllllbmed the bill tmd lltlllried it to pauage. their own members, the Church State Council has always been willing to help anyone

suffering religious discrimination, regardless of their religious affiliation or doctrinal beliefs. The Council has defended freedom for a diversity of. fuith:; fr=

its inception and continues to do so today. Back to Top

''If religious hoerty means anything," says Alan J. Reinach, esq., who became executive director of the Church State Council in 1994, ''it means that we stand

up for everybody:S religious freedom. A lot of groups will help members of their own community, but we're known for helping people of any community."

Conscience Exemption From Labor Union Support In 1974 the Church State Council hit a critical juncture because of an active campaign to create collective-bargaining laws for public school employees, local

government employees, state employees, and farm workers. Melvin Adams, the director of religious liberty for the General Conference of Seventh-day

Adventists, visited church leaders in California urging them to organize a program to actively influence legislation in S8CI'IIIJlelrto. In 1974 the Council

established an office in Sacramento and recruited attorney Claude Morgan to serve as vice president and legislative affairs director. ''For several years

conscience exemption from labor union support was almost the total focus of our work," Morgan remembers.

"At times there was a very chaotic scramble as unions and their supporters maneuvered to

propel their legislation along. There were occasions when we would push to get our

conscience amendment adopted in a late-night committee meeting-if our amendment was

adopted, it was the kiss of death for the bill because the unions had vowed they would not

accept our amendment-only to wake up the next morning and discover that the contents of

the collective-bargaining legislation that had been defeated the night before had overnight

been amended into another bill in another committee and was set for hearing just a few

hours later. Legislators supportive of collective-bargaining had introduced bills, and the

thrust of support sometimes shifted rapidly from one to another, depending on which bill

they saw an opportunity to move forward. I am sure there was no one in the capitol building

who did not know that the Adventists were seeking an exemption from the collective

bargaining legislation and that they were not in favor of trade unions.

"Senator AI Rodda, a Democrat from Sacramento, was a teacher and was carrying the

school employees' bargaining legislation. We viewed him as one of our strong opponents,

but over time he became convinced of our sincerity and the merit of our cause. He became

the author of conscience-exemption legislation for school employees and successfully

carried it to passage for us."

Rewriting Religious Corporation Law

R. R. Bietz (left) and A. H. Jolms (right) present Genen1 Dwigbt

Eisellhower with the Church State Council's first Freedom Award in a 1966

�·

"One of the major issues we dealt with," remembers Morgan, ''was the rewriting of the religious cmporation law and the removal of churches from regulation

by the attorney general. In 1979 a Los Angeles attorney representing dissident members of the Worldwide Church of God was able to get Attorney General

George Deukmejian and the Los Angeles Superior Court to cooperate in placing the church into receivership and taking custody of all church records in a

dramatic surprise raid on the church headquarters. During that same time the state legislature was in the process of revising the California corporation law. It

was ultimately decided to draft a separate law to cover religious corporations.

"I was an active member of a church advisory committee of about 20 members who worked directly with the draftsman in developing the provisions of that

law. Meanwhile, Senator Nicholas C. Petris, a Democrat from Oakland, introduced legislation to remove churches from the oversight of the attorney general.

We were very active in the support of that legislation."

RFRA and RLUIPA

In the late 1990s the Council was involved in the flood of activity at both the national and state level to clean up the mess caused by a series of Supreme Court

decisions undermining protection for the free exercise of religion. In the states, a national coalition was working to enact state Religious Freedom Restoration

Acts (RFRAs). The Council introduced such RFRA bills in California, Hawaii, and Arizona, ultimately leading a successful effort to pass a RFRA bill in

Arizona in 1999.

Efforts to pass a broad religious freedom bill in Congress languished, but led Congress to focus on specific needs, including the rights of the incarcerated and

the land use problems faced by religious congregations.

''When the Supreme Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act with regard to states, they said Congress had the right to remedy specific free exercise problems, but not to invoke a higher standard for free exercise across the board, without evidence of specific problems," says Reinach. "They needed

a record of specific problems that required protection. Two problem&-the religious rights of the incarcerated and land use by religious organizations---came

up repeatedly. Congress had to establish a factual basis.

Back to Top

''When they went back to the drawing board to enact a fix. they held hearings for a couple of years, and gathered evidence that would support a bill. I

provided evidence of cases to Representative Henry Hyde's office that helped to provide the necessary support for congressional authority to protect religiOUB

land use so they could document a genuine problem that needed to be fixed. We made a significant contribution to the record." The resulting legislation was

the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person's Act (RLUIPA), enacted in 2000, which is a United States federal law that protects the religious liberty

of prisoners and gives churches and other religious institutions the ability to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on the use of their property.

Tuition Vouchers The Chmd State Council also fought strenuously against approval of tuition vouchers, certificates issued by the government to parents to pay their child's

private school tuition in part or in full. There wen: ballot initiatives in California twice: in 1993, and again in 2000. "The Council successfully opposed them

both times," says Reinach, who also submitted amicus briefs when the issue of vouchers went before the Supreme Court.

''We tried to explain to the Supreme Court," Reinach says, ''why a pervasively sectarian school was so religious it should not be funded by tax dollars. I

surveyed the literature about how faith and values an: transmitted in different types of religious schools, and all of them said the same thing: it's not just the

academic instruction, it's the atmosphere; you're part of a faith community. You're part of a group that has shared values. And to say that somehow you can

fund the secular aspects without funding the religion .. . that's impossible. There is no line between what is faith and what is secular in these schools. Such a

distW:ti.on is pmely artificial-it doesn't reflect reality."

Vouchers were defeated in California, though the Supreme Court upheld them, ruling that they did not violate the establishment clause prohibition on

government funding of religion. ''Basically,'' says Reinsch, ''they relied on the legal fiction that the funds go to the parents, rather than to the school. In fact,

the parents never see a dime. The money is paid directly to the school.

''Voucher schools an: regulated, at least in terms of nondiscrimination rules. 'JYpically, they an: not allowed to discriminate. Thus, they lose the freedom to

bin: taculty and staff who represent their faith. Eventually we can expect voucher schools to be required to conform to state curriculum requirements, losing

the freedom to teach, for example, about Creation or marriage from a religiOUB perspective."

FEHA

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is much stronger than federal law in its sanctions against employment discrimination.

Surprisingly, religious institutions are completely exempt from its provisions, thanks to the work of the Church State Council. In other words, the California

courts cannot sit in judgment on their employment decisions.

September 8, 2012 Bigning ceremony of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (AB 1964) (left to right): MarikD Yamada, Assemblymember; Ian Blair, Legisllllive Aid; Alan J. Reimach, E��q., Executive Director of the

Church State Couocil; Damis Seaton, Director Df Govcnuneut Relaticms,

Church State Couocil; Simran Kaur, Advocacy Mllnager for the Sikh

Coalition.

''I think this exemption might be my largest contribution to religious hllerty," says Morgan.

''The Fair Employment and Housing Commission was sponsoring legislation to expand its

authority. The bill was up for a hearing in an assembly committee chaired by Waddie

Deddeh, an assemblyman from southern California. I had written to the committee asking

that religious organizations be excluded. When I spoke at the hearing, Mr. Deddeh said, 'We

will provide that you can favor members of your church,' but I insisted, 'No, that does not

solve the whole problem. Please do not put us in a position of entanglement between the

church and the state. You don't want the state to be in a position of passing judgment on

church-hiring decisions and deciding which decisions are based on religious considerations

and which an: not.'

''The author and the committee finally accepted our amendment. Of course, that exemption

does place a greater burden on religious organizations to scrutinize their own practices to be

surc that employees 8J'C being treated fairly, but it has probably avoided church-state conflict

in hundreds of employment situations since then."

Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012

When California Assembly member Mariko Yamada introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), Council director Alan Reinsch was quickly

recognized as the subject matter expert on religious IICCOIIliiiOdation and asked to chair the coalition supporting the bill. It easily passed through a legislature

not commonly receptive to religious interests thanks to the skilled leadership of Yamada and her staff, with effective testimony provided by members of the

Sikh Coalition, University of California at Davis law professor Alan E. BroWDStein, and Alan Reinach.

Back to Top

The bill is a signature accomplishment for the Church State Council, providing Californians with the best protections for religious freedom of any state in the

nation. 'We were able to pitch it as a civil rights issue rather than a Christian rights bill," says Reinach. ''Basically the bill does three things: it defines undue

hardship in terms of significant difficulty or expense. You must accommodate religion in the workplace unless it results in a significant difficulty or expense.

Second, it specifies protections for religious dress and appearance that were not in the law previously, giving broad protection for religious dress and

appearance to be accommodated in the workplace. Last, it has something no other state does, and that is a nonsegregation measure making it what Manko

Yamada called 'the Rosa Parks bill of the twenty-first century.'

''There are a number of cases where people who expressed their faith through their appearance have been sent to jobs that do not allow them to engage the

public," sa)'! Reinach. "In one case a Muslim woman was taken off the customer service counter and given a back office job. She lost that case because the

court said there was no adverse action. She wasn't fired; she was just transferred.

''There are cases in which stores put someone in the stockroom because they don't want them out in front of the customers wearing a hijab. The bill prevents

the segregation of workers. Combined, these three provisions secure the best protection for religion in the workplace, allowing people of faith to be

accommodated."

The Sikhs came out in force to support the bill., and Seventh-day Adventist Chureh members wrote letters and e-mails by the score. "Whenever the bill came

up for hearing," sa)'! Reinach, "the hearing room was literally filled with turbans." Reinach also recruited support from the ACLU and the California

Employment Lawyers Association (CELA), respected civil rights groups that made the bill much more palatable to a liberal legislature.

Religious Accommodation Another important aspect of the Chureh State Council's work continues to involve Sabbath observance in the form of Saturday work schedules. They receive

more than 100 calls for help from Adventist chureh members every year. "In the early da)'l," sa)'! Morgan, "fax machines were rare, and Federal Express had

launched a new service of same-day delivery by their fax S)'ltem. We often were able to use that service to put a religious accommodation request letter into

an employer's hands within hours ofleaming about a Sabbath observance problem.

''This was also a time when government agencies were developing equal employment opportunity appeal processes, and I handled administrative appeals for

members facing religious liberty problems with government agencies."

Melvin Jacobson, who has since passed away, worked as an associate director for the Chureh State Cmmcil. Alan Reinach estimates that Jacobson worked in

religious liberty for three decades. "He had a real knack for building bridges," Reinach recalls. "In one of the Sabbath work issue cases he was handling, he

drove down to see the owner at his ranch. They spent 45 minutes talking about farming and ranching, then Mel asked him what he wanted to do about the

Sabbath work problem. The owner said, 'Oh. don't wony about that. That's handled' Mel had a remarkable way with people."

Freedom's Ring Radio For 15 years the Chureh State Council has broadcast Freedom's Ring Radio, a nationally and internationally syndicated program produced in cooperation

with the North American Religious Liberty Association and hosted by Alan Reinach. The show has produced more than 700 programs and covers news of

religious l.J.'berty both in America and around the world. The 15-minute show is broadcast globally and heard on six continents.

In the final summation Reinach says: "As Thomas Jefferson once penned: 'Almighty God

hath created the mind free.' We defend everyone's right to worship God, or not, because we

believe a loving God would have it no other way. Another favorite writer, Ellen White, said:

''Love cannot be commanded; it cannot be won by force or authority. Only by love is love

awakened."* For 50 years the Church State Council has advocated for religious freedom in

legislatures, courts, and media, and will continue its relentless defense of liberty for all into

the future.

* Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Pub. Assn.,

189 8), p.21. Alan Reinach hosts the intemati.onally syndicated radio program, Freedom's

Ring.

Author: Celeste Perrino-Walker (http://www.libertymagazine.org/author/celesteperrino-walker)

Back to Top

0 Comments Uberty I A Magazine of Religiou8 Freedom


l!i!l luiMartiMI 8 Add DJ.quolo your ... Add Dloq .. Add Q ""-r


Copyright C 2017 North AmerieaD. Divillion of the Seventh-day Adventist Cbureh (bttp:/fwww.llllll8dvealisorgl).

Liberty® ia a tegi.llkn:d 1Illdl:mlrk of the <k:omll Coufercme Culporlltion of Scovc:mh-day .Advc:miJI8 ® (hUp:ffwww.advailiBI.cql).

Liberty ® (ISSN 0024-2055) ia publid!.ld bimOD1hly by dlo NOI1h AmerieaD DiviJion of dlo Sevcth-day Advtalill Church.

8 LoSJin �

BatoTop



Navigation

Religion Is Not a Hobby

Published in the September/October 2014 (http:/lwww.libertymagazine.org/"usuelseptember-october-2014) Magazine

by Nicholas P. Miller (http://www.libertymagazble.org/author/llicholas-p.-miller)

EMAIL {IIIAILTO:?SUBJECTioRELIGION IS FACEIIOOK "IWITER (HTTP:IIT"MTTER.COIIIHOIE? GOOGLE+

NOT A ,. TPit-FACEBOOK.COMIIHARERISHARi. JIIIUS=t!TTP:,_.LIBERr'IIIAGAZINE.ORGIJ � 1*'-D&GOOGLE.COMI!IHARE?

;..;.BBYUODY=tfTTP:IJWWW.LBERTYMAGAZIN u -NE.ORGJARTICLII:IRB.IGION· 18-NOT-A-tiOBBYJ I )RI.=KTTP:-LIBERTYMAGAZINE.ORGJAF

IHIOT-A-tiOBBY) 1&-NOT-A-tiOBBY) 1&-NOT-A-tiOBBY)

On the last day of June the Supreme Court handed down one of the most anticipated results

of this year, affirming t1urt business and cmporate owners do possess rights of religious

freedom under federal law. Rumring a business or filiDg as a cmporation does not mean that

one must set aside one's basic religious convictions. The religious beliefs of businesses, at

least those that are closely held by persons or families with strong religious identities, will

receive protection from federal legialation.

Much was at stake in this case, as there have been growing conflicts between various

businesses operated by people of faith, and the increasingly secular legislation of modem

America. The Court's ruling is being generally criticized in popular media. But much of the

criticism is based. I believe, on either misunderstandings of the decision or an underlying

AUomoy Miller wrote a more delailed outline of tho Hobby Lobby ..-. for ideology that is opposed to religion. Consider the following points: our last issue ("'s Religion a Hobby?''). This post-Court decision piece is labeled an "opiniDil" piece bc:l;ausc the case can be taken 10 many ways, not

l bec&��e I feel that his analysis ill incorrect. What needs to be undentood

well ill the political and cultural context of the C88e. Even a "good'' decision may in filet be part of a mudllarger shift and the llOIIliCqllei1Q not c:mircly First, the basic principle the Court has vindicated is straightforward, untroubling, and indeed

predictable along l.egal lllld tocialliDea. - important: persons of faith do not leave their beliefs behind when they enter the business

world. either in unincorporated or iiK:mporated form. The whole argument over corporations as persons is really irrelevant, despite all the attention it is

getting. Religious not-for-profit institutions are also corporations, and nobody suggests that they should not get religious freedom.

The critical distinction is whether the entity is organized for profit or not. While the dissent spends a long time mulling over the cozporate status, ultimately, if

you look at their concluding paragraph, they are coru:erru:d about the profit purpose for the enterprise. But this is a very strange distinction. On this basis, we

would not protect the religious freedom of employees, because they are working for money, not for a religious purpose. Why is it that employees get their

religious convictions protected, but employers, those who own the corporation, do not? To install a rule as proposed by the dissent would be to prevent

Christians and other persons of faith from meaningful presence as owners and leaders in the business world as our regulatory environment becomes

increasingly secularized.

2

Second, the Court's decision is limited in a way that just does not make the parade ofhombles proposed by the dissent meaningfully realistic. The dissent

appears to be provoked in part by their ideological commilments to feminist views regarding reproductive rights and birth control choice. The fact is that the

majority opinion as!rum.ed that access to this kind of medical care is in fact an important state interest. What they found. however, was that there were "less

restrictive means" of achieving it. Nobody would be denied access to these health benefits; the issue is who would pay for them, the company, the

government, or third-party insurers. Nobody proposed that the women themselves would need to pay.

Back to Top

The majority suggested that the government might pay, or third-party insurers cover the expense, which is what is already done for not-for-profit religious

corporations. The existing exemptions, in my opinion. should caution anyone from viewing this case as troubling. It merely extends an existing exemption

that does not deny anyone coverage, to a somewhat broader group of entities. The Court majority carefully distinguished this decision from people who would

deny vaccination coverage, which like blood transfusions, would implicate important health concerns for many persons, and for which no existing exemption

exists.

3

Third, the majority simply did not say that the religious convictions of employers might trump the rights of employees or other individuals. Indeed, they assert

that third-party rights are very much a concern in these situations, and that statutes regarding racial, ethnic, and other types of discrimination would continue

to provide a compelling interest. It is unlikely, the Court said, that there would be other "less restrictive means" of enforcing these statutes than actually

requiring employers to follow them. Thus, any speculation that the religious rights of employees, such as rights to Sabbath observance or other religious

accommodation. are simply unfounded.

4

Finally, I think the unspoken agenda of much of the media and elite opinion on this case is driven in part by concerns over the gay rights agenda. This case

will bring a greater balance to the contest between religious rights and gay rights. That will be, in my opinion, a good thing. I think this is what is most

important about the Hobby Lobby case, that it has given much greater protection to Christian businesses in dealing with gay rights issues. It does not mean

that religion will always trump gay rights; but it will mean that gay rights will not always trump religion, which is what has basically been happening.

The Hobby Lobby majority relied entirely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act-which applies only to the federal government-and not the First

Amendment, which applies also to state governments. Thus, this decision does not create a general protection from state regulations for private businesses and

their religious convictions. It should be very persuasive precedent, however, for interpreting any state Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There are quite a

number of these acts, and a lot of the floristlphotographerlbakery versus gay marriage cases that have appeared in the news during the past year will now

come out in a way that protects the rights of religious business owners. In all of these instances there have been other vendors who could supply the desired

services, and thus there was no "least restrictive means" requirement to insist that the Christian vendor provide the service.

Indeed, the Court may well have not taken certiorari earlier this year on the photography versus gay marriage case out ofNew Mexico because Hobby Lobby

essentially decides that case, and in the right direction for people of faith. Some will not like this outcome, but it is one of the few legal breaks for people of

faith in the recent past in a legal and political environment that has become increasingly and aggressively secular.

Could this ruling have some unintended consequences? Could it lead to the assertion of corporate religious interests over the consciences of employees? One

suspects that business and corporate interests will try at times to push it in this direction. Perhaps they may find a judge or two sympathetic to their goals. But

there is no reasonable basis in the decision to justify such outcomes, and no real threat of them gaining any real traction. On the contrary, Justice Kennedy's

concurrence makes it clear that he sides with the dissent in ruling that the health-care services involved do represent a compelling interest, and the rights of

women to these services must be protected.

That Justice Kennedy is the swing vote should remind people that the Court is not poised to engage in a radical shift of religious rights from individuals to

corporations. His concurrence signals that he will join the dissent if such an attempt is made. In the meantime, the faith community owes the Green family

and their legal allies a debt of gratitude. Because of their commitment, faithfu1ncss, and perseverance in standing for their religious beliefs, religion will not

be just a hobby that must be left in the lobby whenever one enters the business world.

Author: Nicholas P. Miller (http://www.libertymagazine.org/author/nicholas-p.miller) Nicholas Miller, Ph.D., is an attorney and associate professor of church history at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. He is the author of the The

Religious Rnots of the First Amendment (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), which more fully develops the theme of this article.

0 Comments Uberty I A Magazine of Religiou8 Freedom


l!i!l luiMartiMI 8 Add DJ.quolo your ... Add Dloq .. Add Q ""-r


Copyright C 2017 North AmerieaD. Divillion of the Seventh-day Adventist Cbureh (bttp:/fwww.llllll8dvealisorgl).

Liberty® ia a tegi.llkn:d 1Illdl:mlrk of the <k:omll Coufercme Culporlltion of Scovc:mh-day .Advc:miJI8 ® (hUp:ffwww.advailiBI.cql).

Liberty ® (ISSN 0024-2055) ia publid!.ld bimOD1hly by dlo NOI1h AmerieaD DiviJion of dlo Sevcth-day Advtalill Church.

8 LoSJin �

BatoTop



Navigation

Published in the September/October 2014 (http:llwww.libertymagtuine.o'f:lissuelaeptember-october-2014) Magazine

by Atmm K. Bowron (http:llwww.libertymagazine.org/aut/wr/QQTOn-k.-bownm)

EIMIL (IIALT0:11UB.Ia:J-nwE IW:EBOOK 1'1lllll1lR CHTTP:ttnlllrTliU:OIIIIHOIE.? GOOGLE+ I I lriCEUODY�..MM!tL8ERr'IIIMAZII ,. F --'I&QOK.COIIIIIIHARERI8HA .........-n>:MM!lL8ERI'tMAGAZINE.ORGII f;.IW&&UIILUI.QOOQLE.COIIniWIE?

JUSTlCIQ J mP>JIWWWUBIRniiAGADtE..DRGuumc�..�o�rME- .111811CE) , :fii.IIHnP>..IMWIIIILIB�Rn��AGAZ�tE.ORGUU .IUtriCIQ .IUSnCE)

Secular orthodoxy maintains that courts are the fount8 of justice. This belief is so ingrained in the political and cultural psyche that our judicial system il often

retemd to colloquially as the 'justic:e system." Wrtbin c:ourts' hallowed balls civil disputea ue equitably resolved; the criminally guilty are so adjudged and

puDished. appropriately; the ilmoc:eDt viDdic:ated; wrcmp ultimately� and justice ultimately dccm:c1

Or so goes the thecny. Even stsunc:h propcmcnts of tiUs fimciful. ccmc:eption of the judic:ial system, if they had but miDimal exposure to it iD action, would

likely ccmclude that what pa88e8 for 'jultil:e' iJ liiWilly a rough, inferior variant thereo� at i111 best; at ita worst, an outright travesty. Whether the subject i1

O.J. Simpson or George Zimmennan, who was involved iD the Trayvon Martin killiDg, to l'lllldomly use two examples fiom the c:rimiDal.law arena, anecdotal

stories abowui with widely perceived examples of the judicial system careeniDg off the :rails of justice. ADd yet, like the old adage that even a broken watch is

accurate twice a day, court decisions are occuioDally widely pereoi.ved as geUiJia it "right", thus buoying &ith iD the integrity of the legal system as a

JN1Vcyor of ''justice'' and restoring c0111idence aDd optimism in its overall viability. The recent U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, which affirmed

the right8 of closely held complllliea to opt out of the fedenJI Affordable� Act's mandate to provide conaaceptives under health iDsuram:c plana on the

baaia of religious c:onvictiODB, for example, was lmgely hailed u a victory among religious group11 and tho&e advocating for religious fteedom.

Throughout aixreen yelll'll oflawpractic:e, I have often been reminded of the Proverb, '"Many &eek an audience with a ruler • • • " Many clients want deaperatcly

to have their side of the story told to an impartial. wise aDd discemiDg "rul.er," who iD the moclem era has been recoutituted as an mbiter iD the fmm of court9

od the judicial system. If only clieDts were afforded their "day in court," lies would be expoaed, deception laid bare, wrcmgs would be righted. trudl would

reign supreme and justice would ultimately prevail

Beck to Top

The journey to getting one's "day in court." however, is often hindered by financial and pragmatic cODJiderations, as well as substantive and p:roQedural legal

hurdles and technicalitica. And that is only balfthe battle. The '�ustice" dirrtillcd from one's "day in court," however, is an outcome buffeted by and IIUbject to

1hc vagaries of human tempCiliiDCII.t, philosophy and prejudice, finite Ieii01m:C8 of time and moneyand competing versions of "fact" ami "1ruth." Upon these

shifting variabl.ea secular justice ultimately balances, as if on a fulcrum. landing on one party's side or the olher, depending on the given circumstances.

Christians, however, recognize 1hat true justice, as conceived by the Lord, does not origiDate in courts, DDtw.ithstanding the fact that courtB may, and

undoubtedly do from time to time to fur1her the Lord's purposes. serve as its vehicle. The corollary to the Proverb that ''Many seek an lllldience with a ruler,"

is "'but it i8 from 1M Lord that num ge/3 justice. ''Solomon, whose "breadth of understanding [was] as lllC11811l'CICBS as the sand on the seashore," in Proverbs

exposes the futility of n:lyiDg 011 Illlll1 ami society's iDstitutiODIJ to obtain justice for our 1ribulations. Christians may thus take comfort in bowing 1hat !;hen,

exists a truly Supreme Ruler, acoess to whom is UDbindered by financial or pragmatic consideratiODJ and hlchnicalitiea,. whose justice, unlike the crude: secular

variant, is pure, inena.nt and without blemi!ih or inflwmce from an imperfect world

1. Proverb& 29:26, New lntematioual Venion Bible. Grand Rapidl: ZoudervaD Publishiog Haase, 1989. Prill1. 2./d. 3. l !Gnp 4:29. New lDlcrna1ional �on Bible. <hnd � ZoudervaD Publiabmg llouK, 1989. Print.

Author: Aaron K. Bowron (http://www.libertymagazine.org/author/aaron-k.bowron) Aaron K. Bowron is an attorney with the northern Michigan law firm ofZimhelt, Bowron & Wiggins. PL.C . .

0 Comments Uberty I A Magazine of Religious Freedom 8 Logln T

• "-nmend I! Sha,. Sort by ....a ..



Copyright C 2017 North Amfrican Divilion of the SIM!Dtb.-day Advlmtilt Cllurch (ldtp-Jfwww.lli8dadvmlillorgl).

Liberty® ia a rqplllered trademark of the Gmeral Confi:rcDge Corporation of S� AdveD1istl � (http:ffwww.lllivelltist.org/).

Liberty® (ISSN 0024-2055) ia publi� bimolllbly by 1hc Norlh AmcriC811 Divilion of 1hc Sevallh-dl.y Advaililll ClwrdL

BatoTop



Navigation

1 andBeyond

Published in the September/October 2014 (http:llwww.libertymagtuine.o'f:lissuelaeptember-october-2014) Magazine

by Keith Blair (http:llwww.libenymfJgazine.org/authorlkeith-blair)

EIIAL (IMILTO:?IU�EN IW:EBOOK T1MI1lR (HTTP:ttnlllrTliU:OIIIIHOIE.? GOOGLE+ RrAtONABLE.ACCOMMODA110NI8NOT • �-rN:6'MWIU'ACIDOOK.CO� -�MMWtL8EJtnMAGAZINE.ORCW.!"'' .. US.-.UI.QOOQLE.CO...wiE?

MRr 3: lnLEVII MD � mP'JMWWUBIRniiAGAZitE..DRGfAimC! . ..-NABL..E.ACCO..ODA110N.-....oT· 1; ;LooHnP...IMWIIIII.IBIRniiAGAZitE.ORGUU • .;.roNDUODY�� ... ERniiAOAZI• •• • -z -MODATIO•.....or- MRr+mur.�o-IIEYOND) taiAIOICABLIWICCO..ODA110N4-NOT· IUIMONAIILE..-cCOIIIIIDDATIOM*NOT· MRT+T�-III.YOND) MRT+lnLE-VIMNNEYOND)

MRr+mLE-WI.Mo..YOND)

"We live in 111 era ofuncertam1y Slid amiety about jobs. WO!bD who n:quiie Piligioua accommodaticms aM particularly vulnetabl.e in this enviromnent. Wi1h

the abundance of people eager for employment, worltera needing 111 accommodation face a perilous choice: ask for an accommodation that might precipitate

los11 of the position or COmpiumiae their religioua belief in order to keep employmmt.

"The following aeries of articles, taken from a atwiy I wrote for 1he ...4r.taMt.U Lilw Review, analyzea religioua accommodations in the workplace and the

uncertainty facing employee� that need these acc0111111Ddations. It propo�es that the Americans with Disabilities model for dealing with wOJkplace

accommodatiODS be a model for wOJkplace religious accommodatiODS. Jn short, rather than looking at wOJkplace religious freedom accommodations through

the eyes of the employers, I urge that the accommodations should be looked at &om the employee's point of view.'' -Keith Blair

The Hardison and Philbrook cases have created a laadscape for employees that is counter to the intent of Title vn. The amendments to ntte vn that added

religion as a protected Cldegary we:re coacted to ensure 1hat employees wi1h religious and wotkplace conflicts would be able to reaolve the cmdlicta in a way

that would eaable the employee� to meet both IIebi of obligaticms.1 While DOt all ccmtlic:ts could be resolved in favor of the employee's religious obligations,

the focus waa squarely on how to help the employee.2 The reaaonable-eccommodation regime that hu evolved h88 tabn the focua off helping the employee

reaolve the conflict. Instead, the focus ill on how to minimize the borden on the employer in resolving the cmrl1ict..

Although Title VB &eems to requjre a broad reading of accommodation, courts have been relw:tant to read it broedly. 3 Courts geoerally find either that if an

employer were to provide an accommodation that tho employer would suffer a hardship, or that any accommodation provided by an employer is �!ffi�i�t

and the:refote reasonable--end meets the standanls of Title vn. 4 Judges have gene:rally DOt been wi1liq to requi!e deviation from rules of general HllfciiP

applicability in religion cases despite Title VII's seemingly broad mandate.5

By using the approach toward reasonable accommodation that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) uses, employees who are facing conflicts between

their religious practices and workplace rules will have a more even playing field when attempting to negotiate an accommodation. The approach taken by the

ADA requires more of an accommodation by the employer. This section looks at how Title VII currently handles accommodations and suggests how required

accommodations might be different if the ADA approach were used.

Current Test Under Title VII The test for proving a case of religious discrimination is fairly straightforward.. In order to prove a prima facie case, an aggrieved employee must prove: (1)

that he/she has a religious practice, belief, or observance that conflicts with a requirement of employment; (2) that the practice, belief or observance is

required because of a bona fide belief of the employee; (3) that the employer has actual notice of the conflict; and (4) that the employee has suffered or will

suffer an adverse employment action because of the employee's noncompliance with the employment requirement. 6 This test is usually not where the problem

arises for employees, however. It is the next step in the process of employment-discrimination claims where employees usually fail.

After the employee makes a prima facie case, the employer must show that it has made a good-faith effort to accommodate the employee's beliefs.7 If the

attempt to accommodate the beliefs was unsuccessful, the employer must show that it was not reasonably possible to accommodate the employee without an

undue hardship. 8 The hardship required to defeat the request for an accommodation is minimal because of Hardison and Philbrook, which established that a

hardship means only a de minimis cost to the employer. 9

For religious employees who seek an accommodation by their employers to meet religious obligations, the Hardison and Philbrook decisions could not have

been less welcome. An employer's responsibility to accommodate an employee's religious needs has been narrowed to such an extent that the employer can

meet its burden merely by offering a token accommodation.10 As a result, many accommodations sought by employees have been found to create an undue

burden.11

Duty to Cooperate The slim legislative history of Title VII contemplated that employees and employers would work together in order to achieve an accommodation that

balanced the employee's religious need and the employer's need to run a business.12 This cooperation not only would have spread the burden more equitably,

but would also have contributed toward creating a workplace that contains diverse viewpoints. Despite the anticipated cooperation, the religious employee

seems to be the party who bears the greatest burden in obtaining an accommodation. Because of the de minimis undue hardship standard of Hardison and

Philbrook, employers need not do much to accommodate the needs of employees who have a religious conflict at work.

If an employee does not cooperate with an employer in attempting to reach an accommodation, he/she has no chance of being successful in a religious

discrimination claim. 13 Courts have recognized this duty of an employee to cooperate in finding a reasonable accommodation. In a Massachusetts case, an

employee filed a complaint against her employer after she was fired for wearing facial piercings at work.14 The employee claimed that she needed to be

groomed in that manner because of her religious beliefs.15 The First Circuit ruled in favor of the employer, finding it would place an undue hardship on the

employer to require him to allow the plaintiff to wear her facial jewelry.16 The First Circuit, quoting from the district court opinion, stated, "[.The] search for a

reasonable accommodation goes both ways. Although the employer is required under Title VII to accommodate an employee's religious beliefil, the employee

has a duty to cooperate with the employer's good faith efforts to accommodate."17

Requiring an employee to cooperate in the fashioning of a reasonable accommodation is fair. It also does not undermine the goal of looking at the religious

and workplace conflict through the eyes of the employee. The cooperation requirement actually places the employee on equal footing with the employer. It

offers the employee respect in that it makes him/her an equal partner in the effort to solve the problem. Focusing solely on how the accommodation affects the

employer without any input from the employee on the accommodation marginalizes religious employees and their needs.

A question related to the employee's duty to cooperate is how much does an employee have to cooperate? Or, as one commentator puts it, does an employee

have to compromise his/her religious beliefs?18 A minority of courts have stated that an employee may be required to compromise his/her religious beliefs in

order to meet the duty to compromise.19 Those courts, however, appear to take the position that religious belief and practices are like a cafeteria menu where

an employee can pick and choose which beliefs he/she wants to observe. 20 This position thus makes it easier for courts to say that an employee must

compromise his/her religion and that an employer need not accommodate the employee.21

This lack of respect for the needs of employees is further evidenced by the fact that an employer can meet its obligation of reasonably accommodating an

employee even if it is an accommodation that is not favored by the employee. In other words, the employee must cooperate in crafting an accommodation, but

the employer does not have to cooperate with the employee. The employer may offer any accommodation that it deems reasonable.22 Again, cooperation need

not mean that the employee's preferred method of accommodation will always be chosen. But if the duty to cooperate were also a requirement on the

employer, this would help ensure that employees' needs were truly being considered in the crafting of an accommodation.

Despite the imposition of the cooperation requirement, employees do not need to compromise their religion as part of an acconunodation. A majority of

courts have held that the employee's duty to compromise is not synonymous with a duty to compromise his/her religion.23 This view seems consistent with

the legislative intent of Title vn.24 Indeed, it would be incongruous with Title VII to require an employee to compromise a religious belief in order to

accommodate a religious conflict.

The current law on reasonable accommodation and the duty of cooperation does offer the employee one glimmer of sunshine: If an employer does not offer

an acconunodation to the employee, the duty of the employee to cooperate is not triggercd.25

Accommodations That Do Not Directly Implicate Financial Concerns An important clement of the reasonable accommodation regime is that the acconunodation must eliminate the conflict between the employee's religious

requirements and the employer's work requirements.26 This circumstance generally comes into play when an employee is offered a shift swap as an

accommodation for time off for a religious need. v

One commentator who discusses the courts, treatment of shift swaps indicates that the courts arc "ambivalent" toward religious-accommodation claims. 28

Shift swaps arc similar to day-of-worship accommodations, but not identical.29 Shift swaps occur when an employee needs a day off for a religious

observance, and the employer allows the employee to swap shifts with another employee rather than granting leave directly. 30

Federal district courts favor voluntary shift swaps and generally view them as a reasonable acconunodation for Title vn purposes.31 A shift swap that does, in

fact, eliminate the conflict between the employee's need for religious time off and the employer's job requirements is a reasonable accommodation. 32 The

thorny issue with shift swaps arises when the employer suggests a shift swap in an attempt to accommodate the employee but no one is willing to swap shifts.

Courts have found that this circumstance is still a reasonable accommodation. 33

From a purely legal standpoint, the shift-swap acconunodation does appear to be reasonable even if there is no employee readily available to swap shifts.

However, from a policy viewpoint, this situation is problematic. If one of the goals of Title vn is to enable religious employees to practice their faith, within

reason, while keeping their jobs, 34 the shift swap solution does not achieve that goal if no second employee is willing to swap. That would place the

"religious" employee in the position of having to choose between his/her job and his/her faith, which is contrary to the goals of Title vn.

In summary, courts have taken a pro-employer view of what constitutes a reasonable acconunodation. This narrow view is contrary to the congressional intent

for Title vn religious-employment-discrimination cases.35

Religious Discrimination Claims Are Different Than Claims Based on Race, Color, Sex, or National Origin

While there arc similarities between discrimination based on religion and discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin, 36 religious

discrimination also demonstrates some unique differcnces.37 Those differences require a different type of analysis than that which is done for the other

classifications of section 70l(j).38

People of faith who claim religious discrimination in the workplace arc seeking an accommodation. They wish to work a different shift, or not to work a

particular day, or to wear something that nonreligious employees arc not allowed to wear. In other words, they wish to be trested differently. Employers have

a duty to accommodate those needs. Employees who claim workplace discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin arc seeking the opposite

they wish to be trested the same. 39

Although the Title vn religion cases focus mostly on the accommodation of the employee, employers use neutrality as a defense for making

accommodations.40 While neutrality is a principle applied in cases that deal with discrimination in the other Title VII classifications, it is not an intuitive

principle in the religion context, as there is a mandate for employers to accommodate their employees.41

Professor Karen Engle has examined neutrality in the Title vn religion cases and has found two trends. One is that courts will consider a workplace rule

neutral because it does not discriminate against any particular religion and, in fact, disallows all religious practices.42 This neutrality, however, ignores the fact

that Title vn contemplates that employees will and should be treated differently in order to resolve conflicts between religious practice and workplace rules.

Additionally, the goal of Title vn is not to disallow all religious practices. The goal is to allow religious practices as best as possible. Focusing on whether

other religious employees receive the same accommodation misses the point. An Orthodox Jewish employee might need a day-of-worship accommodation,

while a Muslim employee would not. The fact that the Muslim employee does not need an accommodation for a day of worship should have no bearing on

whether the Orthodox Jewish employee receives the accommodation.

Additionally, the question of whether all religions have been treated the same focuses on the employer's perceived need to have religious neutrality in the

workplace. Although an accommodation should not favor one religion over another, an accommodation is not suspect if it only reaches one religion.43 The

focus, instead, should be on the need to ensure that the religious employee is able to meet both his/her religious and workplace obligations. That focus is in

keeping with the goals ofTitle vn.44

Another view of neutrality is that courts may deny claims on the grounds that the employee was treated the same as other employees.45 This claim of

neutrality, however, does not acknowledge that religious employees have a need to be treated differently through an accommodation.

Religious Discrimination Is Not the Same as Status-based Discrimination As one commentator discusses, the principal similarity between discrimination based on religion and the other fonns of discrimination is that the

discrimination is based on the status of the person.46 Just as a person can face discrimination for her status as a person of color, or as a woman, or as a person

of Indian descent; a Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu may face discrimination based on his/her status of being identified with the particular religion.47 However, the

vast majority of religious discrimination claims are not based on the religious status of the individual. Rather, the claims are based on the individual's

practice, belie� or observance.

An example of a practice-based religious discrimination claim would be one where an employee wished to have time off because of a day of worship, similar

to the employee in Hardison.48 An employer who does not wish to grant the time off to this employee generally is not doing so because of the religious status

of the employee. Rather the employer does not wish to accommodate the employee's religious practices.49

Additionally, Title Vll defines religion as encompassing all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief. 50 Employers must accommodate an

employee's religious observance and practice of belief unless that would pose an undue hardship to the employer. 51 Thus, the words of the statute call for

employers to accommodate the religious needs of their employees and, in essence, religion itself. 52

Religion Is Not Immutable A major difference between religion and the other Title Vll categories is that religion is not ''immutable." Religion is not a physical trait like gender or race.

While one can be ''born into" a particular religion at birth, like national origin, 53 that is not a perfect analogy. Religion is more likely to be something that is

initially chosen unlike the other categories. Religion deals with how one lives one's life and what one believes. As Professor Engle puts it, religious practice

can be both compelled and voluntary. S4 Whether one considers that practice compelled or voluntary is a central question in Title Vll religious discrimination

cases. 55

Not only is religion not immutable; it is something that is a choice and yet is not a choice. Most religious persons at some point in their life make a decision to

follow a particular religion. That choice may be a conscious choice made because of attending worship services or some life-changing experience. The

decision can be a choice that is made over time, as when a person is born into a particular religion. In any event, a choice is ultimately made.

But when that choice is made and religion becomes part of the person's life, there is no room for choice. Either the person will embrace the religion and its

practices and beliefs and it will become an all-encompassing part of the person's life, or he/she will not and the beliefs and practices of the religion will

become meaningless to the person. When the person lets religion become all-encompassing, there is no choice as to whether or not to follow the religion's

practices or beliefs.

For example, there is no question that an Orthodox Jewish person will not work from sundown on Friday evening through sundown Saturday evening. That is

his/her Sabbath, his/her day ofrest, and it would be unthinkable for him/her to even consider doing secular activities on that day. It is as much a part of his/her

being as the color of his/her hair.

Some commentators define the accommodation that employers must give employees under Title VII as a ''positive right" because it creates an exception to

the neutrality principle unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship to the employer. 56 Title Vll, therefore, requires courts to balance the

interests of the employee who seeks an accommodation for his/her religious practice, belief or observance, with those of the employer who will bear the cost

of that accommodation. 57 Courts, in other words, must decide when the neutral rules are subject to an exception for religious reasons. 58

Despite the accommodationist nature of Title vn, courts have been reluctant to grant accommodations to employees. 59 This might be because Title vn is an

anti-discrimination statute, and courts are unwilling to seem as if they are endorsing religion. 60 Additionally, courts seem unwilling to impose much, if any,

burden on employers to accommodate their employees' religious needs.61 This reluctance to provide accommodations in religion cases actually makes them

similar to the race, gender, and national origin cases.62 And, as such, employees face a burden that they should not have to face.

Keith Blair heads the Blair Law Firm in Columbia, Maryland. He has served in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he litigated a number of tax cases. He

has also served as the director of the tax clinic at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

1 Nantiya Ruan, Accommodating Respectful Religious Expression in the Workplace, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 1, 16 (2008).

2 /d.

3. See Karen Engle, The Persistence of Neutrality: The Failure of the Religious Accommodation Provision to Redeem Title VII, 76 Tex. L. Rev. 392 (1971).

4/d.

5 /d

6 Steven D. Jamar, Accommodating Religion at Work: A Principled Approach to Title VII and Religious Freedom, 40 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 719, 743 (1996); see

also Reed v. Int'l Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agric. Implement Workers of Am., 569 F.3d 576, 580 (6th Cir. 2009); Webb v. City of

Philadelphia, 562 F.3d 256, 259 (3d Cir. 2009); E.E.O.C. v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008); Bowles v. N.Y. C. Transit

Authority, 285 F. App'x 812, 813 (2d Cir. 2008); Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1320 (11th Cir. 2007); Ellis v. Principi,

246 F App'x 867, 872 (5th Cir. 2007).

7 Jamar, supra note 176, at 743.

S id.

9/d.

10SeeAnsoniaBd. ofEduc. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 68 (1986); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84 (1977).

llSee e.g. Trans World Airlines, Inc. 432 U.S. 63; AnsoniaBd. ofEduc. 479 U.S. at 60.

12 AnsoniaBd. ofEduc., 479 U.S. at 69.

13 Debbie N. Kaminer, Title VIIs Failure to Provide MeaningfUl and Consistent Protection of Religious Emplayees: Proposals for an Amendment, 21

Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 598 (2000).

14 Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390 F.3d 126, 130 (1st Cir. 2004).

15 /d.

16 Id. at 137.

17 Id. at 131 (quoting Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 311 F. Supp. 2d 190, 198 [D. Mass. 2004]); see also Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 307 F.

App'x 864, 866 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bruffv. N. Miss. Health Services, Inc., 244 F.3d 495, 501 [5th Cir. 2001] (["An employee has a duty to cooperate in

achieving his accommodation of his or her religious beliefs"]).

18 Kaminer, supra note 13, at 597.

19 Id. at 599.

20 Id.

21 Id.

22See Bruff,244 F.3d 495 at 501 ("Once the Medical Center establishes that it offered Bruff a reasonable accommodation, even if that alternative is not her

preference, they have, as a matter of law, satisfied their obligation under Title VII'').


24SeeKeith Blair, "A Civil Right Tested," Liberty, May/June 2014, pp. 12-17.

25 Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481,1488-89 (lOth Cir. 1989) (citing Brener Diagnostic Ctr. Hosp., 671 F.2d 141, 146 [5th Cir. 1982]; Anderson v.

Gen. Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div., 589 F.2d 397, 401 [9th Cir. 1978]).

26SeeAnsonia Bd. ofEduc. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 63 (1986).


28 I d. at 606.

29 /d. at605.

30 /d.

31See Beadle v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't., 29 F.3d 589, 593 (11th Cir. 1994), Moore v. A. E. Staley Mfg. Co., 727 F. Supp 1156, 1161 (N.D. lll.

1989); Kaminer, supra note 13, at 606.

32See Beadle, 29 F.3d at 591, 593 (finding that the employee was afforded a reasonable accommodation even though he could only negotiate a shift swap on

two occasions); Kaminer, supra note 13, at 604, 605 (citing Ansonia Bd. ofEduc. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 70 [1986]).

33 Kaminer, supra note 13, at 605, 606; see Beadle, 29 F.3d at 591, 593.

34See Ruan, supra note 1, at 15.

35 Id.; see also Kaminer, supra note 13, at 606.

36See e.g., Tseming Yang, Race, Religion, and Cultural Identity: Reconciling the Jurisprudence of Race and Religion, 73 Ind. LJ. 119-121 (1997).

37See Jamar, supra note 166, at 742.

38See id.

39See id.

40 Engle, supra note 3, at 392.

41 /d.

42 Engle, supra note 3, at 392 (citing United States v. Bd. ofEduc., 911 F.2d 882 [3d Cir. 1990]). Professor Engle relates a case in which a federal appeals

court upheld the dismissal of a Muslim teacher for wearing religious garb. The court found that if the teacher had been accommodated, the school district

would have run afoul of a state law banning the wearing of anything that indicated that the teacher was a member of a particular religion. United States, 911

F.2d 882, 891 (3d Cir. 1990).

43 Michael W. McConnell, Accommodation of Religion: An Update and a Response to the Critics, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 685, 706 ( 1992).

44SeeBlair, supra note 24.

45 See id.


47 See id.

48 SeeBlair, supra note 24.


50 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) (2006); see alsoEngle, supra note 3, at 357, 358.

51 Engle, supra note 3, at 358.

52 /d. at 358.

53 See id. at 327.

54 Id. at 359.

SS ld at 3S3.

56 EDgle, supra note 3, at 357, 358 (quoting Michael W. McConnell, Accommodation of R!Jligion: An Update: and a Response to Critics, 60 Geo. Wash. L.

Rev. 68S, 737 (1992]).

57/d

58/d at 358, 359.

S9Jd at 360.

60/d.

61ld at 361.

62/d

Author: Keith Blair (http://www .. Iibertymagazine.org/author/keith-blair)

Keith S. Blair heads lhe Blair Law Firm in Columbia, Maryland. He has served in the U.S. Department of Justice, where he litigated a number of tax cases.

He has also sCIVed as dim:tor of the 'I8x Clinic at the University of Baltimore School of Law.

1 Comment Lllerty I A Ma;ai:lne of Rallglou• FI1Nidam

• Rllcammencl a s��an

• Join the discussion ... .-...

AllenM • 2 Y"''"'llllo

8 Logln �

-rhe thorny issue with shift swaps arisa. when the employer suggests a shift swap i'1 an �to accommodate the employee but no one is wiling to swap shifts." My e11111oYer offers 1) use vacalionlpersonal days, 2) swap shift, and 3) the day off without pay providilg the work load penniiB (whi:h is never). Toward the

end of the year wllen my vacatlonfpersonal days are used up, and I can nat find anyone to swap my Sabbath schedule, I face dl�lnary action because I

will rd wort: on a holy day. This policy Is Inadequate to say the least. but believe It or not written In the C0111*1Y'S religious accommodation policy Is the

company's wiii!V1fl88 to offer "ffaxibl& scheduling" but because I belong to a union (I have no choice) and am sLJ:Iject to the collective bargaining 8!J'fl8ment,

I can not be lrsaiBd dilferuntly than any of my co-workers. It is very true what is said iltha bagiming of lhB article in that "lnsiBad, lhB fucus is haw to

minmize the burden on the e1f11loyer in resolving the conllct." Perhaps the workplace religious freedom act will � ThaMyou for your articles! A v • Raply • Shall!! I

Copyriaht 0 2017 North American Diviaion of the Seventh-day Advadisl Cmrch (http://www.nadadventiJI.org/). Libaty � ia a reai*red trademark of the Geaeral Col!ferem:e Corporati<m of SeveDih-day .Adw:Dtials ® (hUp:flwww.advemiJt.orsf). Libaty � (ISSN 0024-lO'S) is published bhn<mlhly by the North American Dlvial<m of the SM:IIIh-day Adven1itt Churdl.

Bacl to Top

LIBfRTY - Andrews

Documents