To Pray or Not to Pray

A story arising out of Charles Town, WV last week is worth keeping a close eye on.  As reported in The Journal, the Charles Town City Council decided to replace the “decades-long tradition of reciting the Lord’s prayer” with a moment of silence to begin their meetings from now on.

The decision was made, the story notes, after the City Council’s attorney [incorrectly/incompletely] informed them of potential legal liability if the tradition continued.  Reports Edward Marshall of The Journal:

Councilwoman Ann Paonessa, one of the council members who voted for the moment of silent prayer, said it seemed to her that the practice of reciting the Lord’s prayer presented some real legal problems and exposed the city to liability.

. . .

Councilwoman Schmitt, another council member who voted to institute the silent prayer, said her decision was based on legal advice from the city’s attorney.

“Basically we’re at risk of legal action, being sued, if we continue using the Lord’s prayer based on court cases that were cited,” Schmitt said.

So, how did this all get started?

The issue arose after Brown acknowledged last month that there were legal issues regarding the recitation of the prayer after resident Rich Schaffer wrote to Mayor Peggy Smith to tell her he felt offended by the use of the spoken prayer. Schaffer , who is Jewish, previously told The Journal he never had any intention of suing the city. He said he has been attending council meetings because of his concerns about the proposed demolition of a house in the town’s historic district by a local Baptist church.

If you, or someone you know, is familiar with the situation in Charles Town - either the intimidation to remove prayer, or the issue of the Baptist church’s land use rights - the Family Policy Council of West Virginia would like to know more about the situation.  Either leave a comment below or send us a message through our website, www.familypolicywv.com.

Intolerable Tolerance

A story out of Canada ought to frighten - as my father is fond of saying, the “bejeebers out of” - every Christian ministry (Church or lay) in West Virginia.  This quote gives the gist of what has happened:

Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay.

What is the purpose of “Christan Horizons?”  As they define it on their website:

Christian Horizons is a non-profit, Christian charitable organization. We seek to reach out with supports and friendship to persons who have exceptional needs. Our purpose is to contribute to the exceptional person’s quality of life by addressing his/her spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social and physical needs. We serve in a manner that considers each person’s intrinsic value as loved by God and bearing His image

Here is a nonprofit ministry that is working with people who have significant disabilities, seeking to treat their physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and….gasp….spiritual needs, guided by their Judeo-Christian worldview.

Opposed, apparently, to this ministry is the Canadian government. One would guess that, on some level, the Canadian government appreciates the impact that this ministry has had upon the well-being of the many charges in Christian Horizons’ care, yet it clearly balks when the ministry dares to suppose that, in addition to the physical, emotional, etc., needs their severely disabled patients possess, there is also a spiritual component that must be addressed.

And yet, the spiritual component to this story nearly pales when compared to the legal implications.  Certainly, there is a religious liberty argument to be made.  No one - corporate or individual - should be punished for doing anything more than abiding by their religious worldview.  Clearly, that has happened here.

However, consider the broader corporate and societal implications of Canada’s overreach.  Effectively, the Canadian government has inserted itself into the board room of Christian Horizons, defied a majority of the organizations governance and financial supporters, and imposed upon this business restrictions antagonistic to the stated mission and purpose of the organization.

In effect, the Canadian government has intolerably said that it will not tolerate the intolerance of Christian Horizons and that it must tolerate, corporate principles of tolerance, even though such coerced toleration cannot be tolerated by an otherwise tolerant religion, in order to be legally defined as “tolerant.”

Allow me to translate myself: the Canadian government has chosen to pick and choose who is, and who is not, tolerant.  In so doing, it has placed itself as the ultimate authority of law and morality over the lives of Canadians.

What will be next?  If the Canadian government can reach into the corporate board room, will they then insert themselves at the kitchen table and define family devotions as instances of “coerced indoctrination of intolerance?”  Will it fill the pew and censor the sermon for instances of intolerance?

We, as a society, are ill-served when government believes itself to be the end-all-be-all to what ails the world.  When government believes there is nothing greater then it, society does not benefit.  There must be something greater than government, or all our law is but the meaningless (though pithy) proposals of people.  It is empty and lacks any moral authority whatsoever.

But, when government recognizes that there is a law that is higher than itself, when it humbly accepts its duty to ensure some of the justice we lost in the Fall, when it turns to truly understand that righteousness and justice go hand-in-hand, then government can act with a submissive authority that does more than merely change laws.  It changes lives.

As Jonathan Edwards, Jr. said in his sermon to public servants in 1794, “The best and perhaps the only remedy for such [social] diseases, is a full belief of the divine universal providence, of the accountableness of all men to God for all their conduct, and of a future equal retribution.”

With the Canadian situation, we see a government entirely devoid of ultimate accountability, revealing that checks and balances are only as good as what they are checked and balanced against.

www.familypolicywv.com

More Evidence….

….that the WV Legislature dodged a bullet by refusing to pass extra-constitutional protections for “sexual orientation.”

The Center for Law and Religious Freedom said on its blog last week that some within the radical homosexual agenda are advocating the removal of a religious organization’s tax exempt status if the organization - even if acting in concert with its bylaws and core convictions - “discriminated” on the basis of one’s sexual orientation.

Concludes the CLRF:

This is why the pending cases pitting religious associational freedom against certain nondiscrimination rules are so important. If these cases are decided correctly, there will be clearer constitutional protection from those that want to punish religious groups for holding traditional views on human sexuality.

Agreed.

Religion-Free Elections

Yesterday, the Washington Times featured an article on the faith of presidential hopeful, Sen. John McCain.  The thrust of the story is that, while Sen. McCain maintains a personal, religious faith, he is not apt to broadcast his beliefs publicly.

The story quoted from Prof. Wilfred McClay, a professor of humanities at the University of Tennessee at Chatanooga.  The learned professor concluded that it is unlikely that opponents in this presidential election will use religion as a “wedge issue,” attempting to discredit the other’s credibility by calling into question the candidate’s moral underpinnings.  Prof. McClay’s quote ended the article, “We may see a very religion-free election as a result.”

Should our elections be, “religion-free?”

While it is certainly true that our constitution expressly says that, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office,” (Article VI, Sec. 3) one’s religion is of vital importance and rightly ought to be examined.

The electorate should not compel a candidate to pass a written theological examination; but, what ought to be as open as a candidate’s bookkeeping is what defines their worldview.  For, an understanding of one’s worldview will reveal much about their political philosophy.

Most social issues addressed by our political leadership must stem from a moral base.  In fact, what is law, but a codification of morality?  Thus, the question is not whether or not we ought to legislate morality, it is a question of whose morality will be legislated.

During this election cycle - nationally and locally - we urge those with the power of the vote, to carefully consider a candidate’s worldview.  Test the candidates worldview, as much as you are able, to determine whether it is in line with your convictions.  If it is, cast your vote.  But, where your worldview clashes with the worldview of a candidate for public office, pause to consider the effect of your vote.

To be sure, elections - like the governance that follows - will be anything but, “religion-free.”

Polispeak: Rarely Safe.

In reading the online CNN report about the faith forum attended by the two candidates for the democratic presidential nomination, the following line lept out at me:

Clinton, asked whether she believed life begins at conception, replied that “the potential for life begins at conception,” adding that the Methodist church, her denomination, had “struggled with this issue.”

Much, I suppose, could be said about the tightly chosen rhetoric of Sen. Clinton (“potential for life?”), but it was this line that really made my puzzler puzz:

“…And as some of you’ve heard me discuss before, I think abortion should remain legal — but it needs to be safe and rare,” she said.

Safe and rare? We all know that this line was a product of a copious amount polling, strategy sessions, and spinmeisters. So, it’s worth our time to unpack the phrase.

First, Sen. Clinton believes abortion on demand, as currently practiced, ought to be legal. That means, from conception to 2/3’s delivery, Sen. Clinton wishes to have abortion available for all. This would also include partial birth abortion, the banning of this baneful practice she voted against in 2003.

But, her talking point here suggests that she is in favor of “safe” abortion. Safe for the future life? That can’t be it, after all the plain meaning of abortion ends that future life with suction, chemical, or clamps. Could she have meant safe for the mother? Perhaps, but it is a bit far fetched. Studies have linked abortion with several conditions that cannot be described as “safe” for the mother. Safety, it appears, is a concern based mainly within the political world, not one of reality.

Then there is the word, “rare.” While this is clearly opposed to what Sen. Clinton just said (”I think abortion should remain legal”), it could be supposed that Sen. Clinton is speaking in terms of ratios - births to abortions. Some sources say there is a birth every 8 seconds in the world, while other sources suggest an abortion takes place every 6 seconds. If Sen. Clinton suggests abortion, defined thusly, is rare, then so rare must also be live births. Then again, if she would like to see abortion be rare, perhaps she could help steer the multiple million Federal dollars away from the coffers of Planned Parenthood. That would do much to make abortion on demand go the way of the dodo.

No one should be permitted to determine whether one life is more important than the next, nor should one’s rhetoric escape unexamined (including mine).

The question is for you: what do you know about abortion and will it influence your participation in this representative democracy?To begin to answer the first part of that question, I commend you to the Roe IQ Test. Your knowledge (or lack thereof) about abortion in America may surprise you.

Business Discrimination

During West Virginia’s last legislative session, the Legislature dodged a bullet by refusing to pass S.B. 600. That bill would have made “sexual orientation” a human and civil right. What would this have meant to the business world?

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia has written a white paper on the implications of S.B. 600 on businesses - to read it, click here and then on the link for “Businesses and S.B. 600.” One of the lawsuits mentioned within that white paper concerned Elaine Photography from New Mexico. This typical photographer (weddings, graduations, etc.) declined the business offered by a lesbian couple, objecting to photographing their “commitment ceremony.” Two weeks later, Elaine is hauled before the NM Human Rights Commission, charged with discriminatory practices.

Today, the NM Human Rights Commission held that Elaine’s religious conviction violated New Mexico law. In addition, the commissioner ordered Elaine to pay $6,600 in attorney fees.

If S.B. 600 had been successful, small, medium, and large sized businesses would be increasing their potential for liability. The West Virginia Human Rights and Fair Housing Acts are nearly identical to New Mexico’s.

In attempting to limit one form of discrimination, it seems another is created.

Homeschooling Update

On March 11, we wrote about a California court’s finding that there was no constitutional right to homeschooling.

It appears that the winds may be changing, thanks in large part to our ministry allies, the Alliance Defense Fund.  Thanks to ADF’s request, the California court is going to take a second look at this decision.

Read ADF’s press release for more information.

Legislative Roundup

It has been a busy couple of weeks for The Family Policy Council of West Virginia.  Since our last post, we have been working out front and behind the scenes to discourage some policies that would significantly harm the family, we changed our name (from the West Virginia Values Coalition to The Family Policy Council of West Virginia), and continued to lay the foundation for this great organization.Still, we promised you regular updates and we are sorry that the administrative realities have prevented our attention to this lot on the real estate of cyberspace.There will be more to come on this issue, but to begin to resolve what has been (by all accounts) an odd legislative session, consider the following thoughts.

1.  No “life” legislation passed either house this session.  Though 61 bills on the subject of abortion were introduced, 0 moved from their place of introduction.   
2. Marriages were hardly enriched.  It would be wrong to say that marriages were not even discussed in our legislature.  Certainly, there was some good debate driven by the proposed “Joint Parenting Act,” a bill introduced to wide bipartisan support.  While this bill does much to assist families following a divorce (and is, for that, commendable), little has been done to encourage one man and one woman to life life together at the core of a family.   
3. Religious freedom afforded ambiguous protection.  While The Family Policy Council of West Virginia recommended (and wrote) a piece of legislation that has been supported by everyone from the ACLU to the National Committee on Amish Religious Freedom, the House Committee on the Judiciary passed.  There is hope, however, that this issue will find some hearing during an upcoming interim session.

So, that’s what did not happen.  There is more, but it is important to highlight two things that DID happen during this session:

1.  The legislature got richer.  We do not take a position on legislative pay raises; however, we do wish to point out the nepotism involved.  Perhaps it was time for an increase in pay, but we would urge our elected officials to consider this issue only after satisfactorily dealing with those issues of prime concern to the electorate.  We are gravely disappointed that a paycheck was put before life, marriage, or religious freedom.  
2. The radical homosexual agenda nearly snuck one through.  This is, perhaps, the greatest surprise of any of this legislative session.  That S.B. 600 was introduced is not surprising.  A version of it has been introduced for more than a decade.  In this session, at least 5 bills attempted to provide extra constitutional protection for the homosexual lifestyle.  What is surprising is that it passed the Senate (unanimously), but lost votes in the House.  While we are delighted that our legislature did not pass a measure that would penalize families for simply abiding by their religious convictions, we are concerned how close our society came.  

Clearly, we all have some work to do.  West Virginia is a state that is dominated by leadership that espouses a worldview in conflict with much of its electorate.  While we can work to make changes at the political and policy level, we must also work inform the worldview of our own friends and neighbors.  

 

While this legislative session is disappointing on several levels, we must remember that God is yet on his throne.  Let us remind ourselves of the grace Christ exhibited in his stand for the Truth. 

 

At The Family Policy Council of West Virginia, we envision a society that treats life as preciously as God does.  We work for this vision because, without life, there is no family.

 

We see a society that encourages one man and one woman living within the joy of marriage for life because we know that strong marriages, make strong families, which make strong communities, cities, states, and nations.  Without strong marriages, quite frankly, families are broken.

 

We look to a future that permits West Virginia families to fully and openly practice their faith with the maximum of protection under the law.  Our historical appreciation for religious freedom in West Virginia drives our concern for the future of our families.  Without policies that safeguard religious freedom, families cannot worship.

 

As an integral part of a national effort to defend the local family, The Family Policy Council of West Virginia is poised to make families the first priority of our leadership, not an afterthought.

 

Let us pray as hard as we work for the family of West Virginia. 

Legislative Update - February 8, 2008 (Day 31)

The Legislative Session of the West Virginia legislature is only 60 days in length. Today marks the halfway, plus 1, point of this legislative session. By all accounts it has been a particularly quiet time in Charleston. But, just how quiet?

In 31 days, 1,736 bills have been introduced - which does not include any resolutions either (or both) house has introduced. Of the nearly 2,000 bills introduced, only 16 have passed through the Senate completely and 37 have made it all the way through the House of Delegates. Of those, only 2 have passed both houses. Neither, as of this writing, have been signed into law by Governor Manchin.

The point? Legislative action is slow. Legislative action in an election year is especially slow.

This Week at the Legislature

LIFE IN LEGISLATION

“Choose Life” License Plates

This past Tuesday, H.B. 4422 was introduced in the House of Delegates and would create the “Choose Life” license plate for anyone wishing to have one. The “Choose Life” program has generated much discussion throughout the country, including West Virginia. Currently, 16 states offer the license plate, 6 states are considering adopting the license plate, and 5 other states are engaged in litigation over the plate.

Some will remember that this issue has come through the West Virginia legislature in years past. If you recall, the bill generated not a little bit of debate in a state that is traditionally pro-life in the homes, but not as much in its governance.

Why all the fuss?

Obviously, the bill touches upon the issue of abortion, one the most debated social issues of the modern era. But, with the “Choose Life” license plates, some argue that - since the license plate is technically owned/issued by the government - the message contained thereon is government speech which must remain content neutral.

The reason? Different states have different provisions, but the “Choose Life” program was started to permit both the expression of one’s pro-life viewpoint as well as fund pro-life programs. To the latter point, when someone would purchase the “Choose Life” plate, a certain portion of the fee could be collected by the marketing agency and then distributed to programs offering adoption or other pro-life services.

But, because the government is the official issuer of the plate, some argued that this constituted the government speech. Because government must remain, “content neutral” in its speech, by permitting a license plate, government broke its own rule.

Today, several courts have held that what you put on your license plate is your speech, not the governments. Thus, in legal terms, the government has opened a “limited forum” (I.e., your license plate) for you to express your viewpoint. Under that scenario, there is no government speech argument to be made.

In West Virginia, the government has clearly opened a limited forum on our license plates. That is why you can purchase license plates to express your appreciation for everything from the Mountaineers to Bowling to the Shriners.

However, no new license plate program is permitted to charge a fee beyond those required by the DMV. Note the word, “new” in that sentence. At one time, this was an option. But, our legislature shut that door recently. Now, if H.B. 4422 passes, it will only express a viewpoint (which is good), but not fund pro-life programs (which would be even better).

Whether or not the legislature can allow some license plate programs to charge a special marketing fee, but not “Choose Life” is a question our lawyers at the West Virginia Values Coalition are reviewing very closely.

Survival Ban

Delegate Tim Miley (D-Harrison) has introduced a bill that would make it a felony to abort a new life that was capable of surviving outside of the womb. H.B. 4392 would do much to protect life in West Virginia.

The introduction of this bill raises an interesting question: when is a child capable of surviving outside of the womb? Around the time that Roe v. Wade was decided, the viability of a new life was hotly debated, but few would have felt comfortable with abortion past the first week of the third trimester. However, it is clear that this idea is changing.

Last February, an Associated Press story noted the delivery and survival of Amillia Sonja Taylor. Amillia was born at 21 weeks, and 6 days gestation. It was, at the time, the earliest known child to survive being born prior to 23 weeks.

While Amillia’s miraculous story creates a strong argument that abortion on demand ought to be illegal after 22 weeks, the question lingers: if it is a life at 22 weeks gestation, why not at 21? 15? 5? 1?

The West Virginia Values Coalition believes that life is sacred from the moment of conception until its naturally occurring death. While we support Delegate Miley’s attempt to curb a largely unaccountable abortion industry, we continue to ask for the complete cessation one of history’s more barbaric activities: abortion.

We also call upon churches to prepare for the day that abortion in the United States is at an end. For, on that day, it will be the churches who must lead a compassionate charge to love, care, and support women in crisis pregnancies and the children they bear. This is part of our duty to care for the family.

Bioethics

H.B. 4463 sponsored by Del. Kenneth Tucker (D-Marshall) would be among the first bioethics laws in West Virginia.

American United For Life have assessed West Virginia’s bioethics laws as, “Dangerous.” The goal of Del. Tucker’s bill is to preserve and protect the survival of all human embryos in West Virginia. What is more, H.B. 4463 stands for adoption too - in a way many of us do not often think about.

Listen to how H.B. 4463 speaks of the value of life and family, “A frozen embryo may be transferred to another entity, located in the State of West Virginia, for preservation, or it may be made available to a married couple desiring to adopt it, to raise as their child. The goal for each frozen embryo located in the State of West Virginia is that it be adopted by a family in which it can live out its full life.”

Where some see a petri dish of tissue or genetics, we join Delegate Tucker in seeing a potential life. And - if you look closely - you may even see a completed family, together, living a full life.

So long as our bioethics laws remain “Dangerous,” such a family portrait exists only in our imagination.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN LEGISLATION

The West Virginia Freedom of Religion Act

On Thursday, the West Virginia Religious Freedom Act (click on “Press Releases” on our website for more information) was introduced by Delegates Shook (D-Monongalia), Majority Leader DeLong (D-Hancock), Azinger (R-Wood), Miley (D-Harrison), Varner (D-Marshall), Reynolds (D-Wayne), and Burdiss (D-Wyoming).

The West Virginia Religious Freedom Act (WVFRA) provides the maximum protection under the law of an individuals right to openly practice their faith. West Virginians have a deep appreciation for religion and its importance to their families. The passage of the WVFRA allows our laws to find agreement with our constitution. Moreover, it removes the ambiguous protection that our families current live under in West Virginia.

It is interesting to note that, when the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (the Federal corollary to the WVFRA) was passed in 1993, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously approved its language.

When was the last time Congress did anything unanimously?

When the Senate voted on it, the vote was 97-3 and was quickly signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The coalition in support of the Federal RFRA included the National Council of Churches, the American Jewish Committee, the American Muslim Committee, the Presbyterian Church, and the American Association of Christian Schools, among many others.

Nineteen other states have passed similar legislation, including: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

Under WVFRA, a West Virginian would have their right to openly practice their faith maximally protected.

MARRIAGE IN LEGISLATION

Sexual Orientation….Again

In last week’s update, we suggested that you keep an eye on H.B. 4164 as it winds its way through the House of Delegates.

This week, the Senate introduced it’s version of the same bill. Senators McCabe (D-Kanawha), Foster (D-Kanawha), Wells (D-Kanawha), Kessler (D-Marshall), Bailey (D-Wyoming), Minard (D-Harrison), Hunter (D-Monongalia), Jenkins (D-Cabell), White (D-Webster) introduced S.B. 600 would protect a person’s, “heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality or gender identity or expression, whether actual or perceived” under the West Virginia Human Rights and Fair Housing Acts.

These bills are the “Trojan Horse of tolerance.” They purport to promote toleration and acceptance and to eliminate discrimination. In fact, if passed, laws like this would do much to create new levels of discrimination. As observed in last week’s update, these proposed laws undermine your freedom of conscience, religion, and right to contract.

Furthermore, the true aim of these bills is the redefinition of marriage and the family. That passage of these bills would provide an opportunity for the radical homosexual agenda to challenge West Virginia’s Defense of Marriage Act.

You have the right, as citizens and voters in West Virginia, to let your voices be heard on each of these bills. By encouraging, or discouraging, the action of your legislator on a particular bill, you actively participate in self-governance.

Family Voice is the official blog of the West Virginia Values Coalition, a 501(c)(3) research and education organization dedicated to standing for the Truth for the advancement of West Virginia’s famlies. Donate online at www.familypolicywv.com.