World Vision's Decision to Hire Employees in Same-Sex Marriages

By Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber. Published on 24 March 2014.

World Vision's American branch will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman.

Abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule. But a policy change announced Monday [March 24] will now permit gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America's largest Christian charities.

In an exclusive interview, World Vision U.S. president Richard Stearns explained to Christianity Today the rationale behind changing this "condition of employment," whether financial or legal pressures were involved, and whether other Christian organizations with faith-based hiring rules should follow World Vision's lead.

Stearns asserts that the "very narrow policy change" should be viewed by others as "symbolic not of compromise but of [Christian] unity." He even hopes it will inspire unity elsewhere among Christians.

[Editor's note: All subsequent references to "World Vision" refer to its U.S. branch only, not its international umbrella organization.]

In short, World Vision hopes to dodge the division currently "tearing churches apart" over same-sex relationships by solidifying its long-held philosophy as a parachurch organization: to defer to churches and denominations on theological issues, so that it can focus on uniting Christians around serving the poor.

Given that more churches and states are now permitting same-sex marriages (including World Vision's home state of Washington), the issue will join divorce/remarriage, baptism, and female pastors among the theological issues that the massive relief and development organization sits out on the sidelines.

World Vision's board was not unanimous, acknowledged Stearns, but was "overwhelmingly in favor" of the change.

"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage."

Stearns took pains to emphasize what World Vision is not communicating by the policy change.

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support."

"We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," said Stearns. "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church.

"This is simply a decision about whether or not you are eligible for employment at World Vision U.S. based on this single issue, and nothing more."

Yet the decision is still likely to be regarded as noteworthy by other evangelical ministries. Aside from World Vision's influential size—it took in more than a billion dollars in revenue last year, serves an estimated 100 million people in 100 countries, and ranks among America's top 10 charities overall—World Vision also recently fought for the right of Christian organizations to hire and fire based on faith statements all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—and won. It also opposed a 2012 attempt by USAID to "strongly encourage" faith-based contractors to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians in order to receive federal funds.

In other words, other Christian organizations look to World Vision for leadership on defending faith hiring practices. Stearns acknowledges this, but wants observers to understand why World Vision is voluntarily changing its own policy.

Stearns said World Vision has never asked about sexual orientation when interviewing job candidates. Instead, the organization screens employees for their Christian faith, asking if they can affirm the Apostles' Creed or World Vision's Trinitarian statement of faith.

Yet World Vision has long had a Christian conduct policy for employees that "holds a very high bar for all manner of conduct," said Stearns. Regarding sexuality activity, World Vision has required abstinence for all single employees, and fidelity for all married employees.

However, World Vision now has staff from more than 50 denominations—a handful of which have sanctioned same-sex marriages or unions in recent years, including the United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Meanwhile, same-sex marriage is now legal in 17 states plus the District of Columbia, and federal judges have struck down bans in five other states (Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, and—most recently—Michigan) as well as required Kentucky to recognize such marriages performed in other states. (All six rulings are stayed until the appeals process is complete.)

Stearns said World Vision's board has faced a new question in recent years: "What do we do about someone who applies for a job at World Vision who is in a legal same-sex marriage that may have been sanctioned and performed by their church? Do we deny them employment?

"Under our old conduct policy, that would have been a violation," said Stearns. "The new policy will not exclude someone from employment if they are in a legal same-sex marriage." Stearns said the new policy reflects World Vision's parachurch and multi-denominational nature.

"Denominations disagree on many, many things: on divorce and remarriage, modes of baptism, women in leadership roles in the church, beliefs on evolution, etc.," he said. "So our practice has always been to defer to the authority and autonomy of local churches and denominational bodies on matters of doctrine that go beyond the Apostles' Creed and our statement of faith. We unite around our [Trinitarian beliefs], and we have always deferred to the local church on these other matters."

The reason the prohibition existed in the first place? "It's kind of a historical issue," said Stearns. "Same-sex marriage has only been a huge issue in the church in the last decade or so. There used to be much more unity among churches on this issue, and that's changed."

And the change has been painful to watch. "It's been heartbreaking to watch this issue rip through the church," he said. "It's tearing churches apart, tearing denominations apart, tearing Christian colleges apart, and even tearing families apart. Our board felt we cannot jump into the fight on one side or another on this issue. We've got to focus on our mission. We are determined to find unity in our diversity."

Highlighting the church/parachurch distinction: Board member and pastor John Crosby, who served as interim leader when a number of churches split off from the Presbyterian Church (USA) after the denomination dropped a celibacy requirement for gay clergy in 2011. At a conference that laid the foundation of the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the Minnesota megachurch pastor stated, "We have tried to create such a big tent trying to make everybody happy theologically. I fear the tent has collapsed without a center."

However, as a World Vision board member, Crosby didn't have a problem voting for the policy change. "It's a matter of trying to decide what the core mission of the organization is," he said.

Crosby, who leads Christ Presbyterian Church in Edina, Minnesota, told CT that the decision was about making sure that World Vision is focusing on its mission to eliminate poverty worldwide. World Vision stretches across countless cultural and theological divides in a hundred countries, and so the issue of theology and how to interpret Scripture should be left to the local church, he said.

"Many of us support World Vision specifically because of its Christian identity. While there are many other good relief organizations, it's the faith component of World Vision that makes it distinctive for us," said Crosby. "[But] how can we represent ourselves as a Christian organization in such a diverse world? That's what we're trying to work through on a daily basis."

Board member and seminary professor Soong-Chan Rah told CT the decision to leave theology to others "honors the church as a whole." "It is not a statement in a particular direction, but it is trying to acknowledge the proper relationship between the church and the parachurch," he said. "If there is something we can learn from [this], it is the value of having conversations and commitment to prayer, over not just this particular issue but all controversial issues that divide the church."

Stearns was adamant the change will not impact World Vision's identity or work in the field. "World Vision is committed to our Christian identity. We are absolutely resolute about every employee being followers of Jesus Christ. We are not wavering on that," he said.

"This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture," said Stearns. "People can say, 'Scripture is very clear on this issue,' and my answer is, 'Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.' The church is divided on this issue. And we are not the local church. We are an operational organization uniting Christians around a common mission to serve the poor in the name of Christ."

In recent years, World Vision and other evangelical organizations that partner with Uncle Sam to deliver humanitarian aid overseas voiced concern over USAID attempts to "strongly encourage" all contractors to develop anti-discrimination policies covering sexual orientation or risk losing federal funding.

"Concerns over government funding had no impact on this decision," said Stearns, noting that World Vision caps federal funding at 35 percent of its cash revenues. "We fought for the whole Christian community, reminding USAID that faith-based organizations have a religious exemption and are not required to follow government hiring guidelines.

"If the U.S. government ever requires us to give up our religious hiring rights in exchange for grants, we would walk away from U.S. grants. World Vision's ministry is not for sale."

World Vision's 2010 victory before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on faith-based hiring practices was watched closely by many Christian organizations (500 people signed up within 24 hours for a related ECFA webinar in April 2010). World Vision general counsel Steve McFarland later gave a series of ECFA webinars advising how other ministries could best structure their statements of faith to defend their hiring practices.

Yet Stearns said World Vision is not suggesting other ministries should now follow its lead.

"We made this decision for our organization based on who we are. Every organization has to come to its own conclusion," he said. "We are still passionate about protecting religious hiring rights—making sure that every Christian organization gets to decide this issue for themselves and not have the government decide it for them." (The latest example: World Vision's amicus brief on Hobby Lobby's Supreme Court case against Obamacare's contraceptive mandate.)

"We're not doing this for any legal reasons," he said. "If we wanted to, we would fight another battle on this all the way to the Supreme Court."

So the question becomes: Will supporters, particularly theologically conservative ones, let World Vision adopt a neutral stance on same-sex marriage? One of the first prominent voices out of the gate: Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, who tweeted, "I'm glad Carl Henry didn't live to see this," and promptly penned a reaction, concluding: "World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Maintaining neutrality on such divisive issues is proving increasingly tricky for Christian organizations with broad coalitions. The most recent example is Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, which has declared neutrality on abortion, same-sex marriage, and guns as it seeks to encompass more Christians yet preserve its diverging base of 2.5 million Lutherans. Yet Thrivent's theologically conservative wing has not been pleased.

And the policy change comes as World Vision has reduced its U.S. workforce by 10 percent over the past 15 months as expenses have risen and government grants have decreased, reports The News Tribune in nearby Tacoma, Wash. "The last 12 to 24 months have been among the most challenging of any we have ever faced," Stearns wrote to 408,000 donors in a January letter that marked "the first time Stearns had sent out a letter asking child sponsors to increase their giving due to cutbacks," the newspaper reported.

Stearns hopes World Vision will not experience similar division like Thrivent and risk losing conservative supporters as a result.

"I don't want to predict the reaction we will get," he said. "I think we've got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we're doing this, and it's my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us. But we do know this is an emotional issue in the American church. I'm hoping not to lose supporters over the change. We're hoping that they understand that what we've done is focused on church unity and our mission."

And Stearns believes that World Vision can successfully remain neutral on same-sex marriage.

"I think you have to be neutral on hundreds of doctrinal issues that could divide an organization like World Vision," he said. "One example: divorce and remarriage. Churches have different opinions on this. We've chosen not to make that a condition of employment at World Vision. If we were not deferring to local churches, we would have a long litmus test [for employees]. What do you believe about evolution? Have you been divorced and remarried? What is your opinion on women in leadership? Were you dunked or sprinkled? And at the end of the interview, how many candidates would still be standing?

"It is not our role to take a position on all these issues and make these issues a condition of employment."

Stearns said he doesn't expect any outcry among World Vision's 100 country affiliates, since World Vision International allows each country to set its own hiring policies appropriate to its local legal context. Even in Uganda, where a high-profile new law criminalizing gays and lesbians has been opposed by World Vision Uganda, it stated: "The issue of same-sex relationships will neither prevent us from serving children, families and communities around the world, nor obstruct our collaboration with one another and with our partner organizations."

The policy change will also not affect World Vision's partnership with ministries that maintain current faith-based bans on same-sex behavior. "This is a very narrow policy change. It's strictly about whether this issue should be a condition of employment at World Vision."

How would Stearns respond to critics who bemoan the decision as yet another Christian organization caving before the advancing gay rights movement?

"We're not trying to do anything that's symbolic for the rest of the church," he said. "But if we're making a statement at all, I hope it's a statement about unity.

"I hope it's a statement that says when Christ left, he gave us the Great Commission [to make disciples] and the Great Commandment [to love others as ourselves], and we're trying to do just that," said Stearns. "Bridging the differences we have, and coming together in our unity."

Stearns has even written books on this subject. "In some manner we haven't finished Christ's mission for the church because we've been divided and distracted by too many other things," he said. "We've got to find our way to unity beyond diversity in the Christian church.

"I know the Evil One would like nothing better than for World Vision to be hobbled and divided on this issue, so that we lose our focus on the Great Commandment and the Great Commission," said Stearns. "And the board is determined not to let that happen.

"I hope if it's symbolic of anything, it is symbolic of how we can come together even though we disagree. We—meaning other Christians—are not the enemy. We have to find way to come together around our core beliefs to accomplish the mission that Christ has given the church.

"We feel positive about what we've done. Our motives are pure," said Stearns. "We're not doing this because of any outside pressure. We're not doing this to get more revenue. We're really doing this because it's the right thing to do, and it's the right thing to do for unity within the church.

"I'm hoping this may inspire unity among others as well," he concluded. "To say how can we come together across some differences and still join together as brothers and sisters in Christ in our common mission of building the kingdom."

Read more here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html?paging=off

By Alex Murashko, CHRISTIAN POST Reporter. Published on 25 March 2014.

Christian leaders such as evangelist Franklin Graham and Russell D. Moore, who is president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, expressed outrage that Christian relief organization World Vision announced it would hire employees in same-sex marriages on Monday.

"I was shocked today to hear of World Vision's decision to hire employees in same-sex marriages," Graham, the son of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, said in his statement. "The Bible is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"My dear friend, Bob Pierce, the founder of World Vision and Samaritan's Purse, would be heartbroken. He was an evangelist who believed in the inspired Word of God. World Vision maintains that their decision is based on unifying the church – which I find offensive – as if supporting sin and sinful behavior can unite the church. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Scriptures consistently teach that marriage is between a man and woman and any other marriage relationship is sin," Graham, who is the president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

Moore also released a statement on Monday in which he pointed out that World Vision, one of the largest Christian relief organizations in the world, said its move was no capitulation, just a recognition that some groups supporting World Vision have differing views on sex and marriage.

"This is no surprise, on one level," Moore explained. "The constellation of parachurch evangelical ministries founded after World War II have been running headlong, with some notable exceptions, toward the very mainline liberalism to which they were founded as alternatives. Some think if we can just barter away Christian orthodoxy fast enough we can catch the wave of that Presbyterian Church (USA) church growth boom.

"But here's what's at stake. This isn't, as the World Vision statement (incredibly!) puts it, the equivalent of a big tent on baptism, church polity, and so forth," he writes. "At stake is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If sexual activity outside of a biblical definition of marriage is morally neutral, then, yes, we should avoid making an issue of it. If, though, what the Bible clearly teaches and what the church has held for 2000 years is true, then refusing to call for repentance is unspeakably cruel and, in fact, devilish."

Moore's statement includes his belief that the world has entered an era "where we will see who the Evangelicals really are, and by that I mean those who believe in the Gospel itself, in all of its truth and all of its grace." He continues, "And many will shrink back."

He writes that there's "an entire corps of people out there who make their living off of evangelicals but who are wanting to 'evolve' on the sexuality issue without alienating their base."

"I don't mind people switching sides and standing up for things that they believe in," Moore states. "But just be honest about what you want to do. Don't say, 'Hath God said?' and then tell us you're doing it to advance the gospel and the unity of the church."

He concludes, "Donor bases come and go. But the Gospel of Jesus Christ stands forever. World Vision is a good thing to have, unless the world is all you can see."

Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay Christian Resources, said the decision by World Vision brings on a time to grieve for children everywhere.

"No matter what you think about this decision, I hope you feel a sense of grief…for the children," Wax wrote on The Gospel Coalition's blog. "This is a story of deep and lasting significance, because there are children's lives at stake in how we respond.

"Children will suffer as Evangelicals lose trust in and withdraw support from World Vision in the future. It will take time for evangelicals to start new organizations that maintain historic Christian concepts of sin, faith and repentance."

After listing reasons children suffer in so many ways, not just in decisions such as the one that World Vision made, and how Evangelicals will respond with grief, he writes. "But we also grieve for children here at home who are growing up in a culture in which sexual idolatry distorts the meaning of marriage and the beauty of God's original design."

Read more here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-leaders-shocked-grieved-by-world-visions-decision-to-hire-employees-in-same-sex-marriages-116730/cpt

Residents Protest Removal of Memorial Cross After Atheists' Complaint

BY ANUGRAH KUMAR, CHRISTIAN POST CONTRIBUTOR. Posted on 10 March 2014.

Some residents of Lake Elsinore, Calif., are protesting the removal of a cross, which was placed two years ago in honor of a young Christian man who died in an accident there, by installing smaller crosses with messages for the atheist group under whose pressure the memorial was taken down.

"What happened to our freedom," reads the message on one of the small wooden crosses that replaced the big, white cross that was set up as a memorial for 19-year-old Anthony Devaney, who was fatally struck by a car while crossing Lake Street in May 2012.

"What if this was your child?!?!" reads the message on another cross. "Ever heard the phrase to each his own?!!! Does this bother you??? Look the other way!!" says another one. "People suck!!! Get a life!!!" reads yet another one.

The mother of the deceased, Annmarie Devaney, removed the memorial cross last Thursday to avoid a conflict, as the American Humanist Association had complained to the city of Lake Elsinore saying the cross on public property was unconstitutional and a matter of separation of church and state.

"It hurts. It's like reliving the moment again, it's like losing my son again pretty much," Annmarie told ABC News. "I don't understand why they need it to come up, but me being the mom and try to keep it positive, I want to do what's right and I don't want to make it a big deal or cause a scene."

"I think they're just looking for something to complain about, really, and I think that it's petty," she told The Riverside Press-Enterprise. "The cross is there because my son's Christian, and not for any other reason. I don't know why they're doing this, but it makes me sad."

The atheist group has said it is "pleased with the city's decision to comply with the constitutional requirement of separation of church and state by removing the Latin cross from its property."

Following the removal of the cross blogger Hemant Mehta the "Friendly Atheist" wrote on the Patheos website, "These replacement crosses are far more offensive to Anthony Devaney's memory than anything the Humanists did. Where's the backlash against these people who are using an unfortunate controversy to advance their own agenda?"

Mehta says the Devaney family could build another memorial in their home or church focusing on how Anthony lived instead of where he died. "And let's see how quickly the Lake Elsinore City Council removes these distraction crosses; at this point, there should be no reason for a delay."

According to Press-Enterprise, City Councilman Brian Tisdale says he thinks the atheist group is being insensitive by requesting Devaney to remove the cross. "I think they're going a little bit overboard and being insensitive to other people's needs," he said. "This has nothing to do with city or government."

Tisdale previously headed the city's committee that planned to erect a veterans' memorial of a soldier kneeling next to a cross at the local minor league baseball stadium. The American Humanist Association challenged the veterans' memorial, and in February a U.S. district judge ruled the monument was unconstitutional and must be redesigned.

Link: http://www.christianpost.com/news/calif-residents-protest-removal-of-memorial-cross-after-atheists-complaint-115866/

Freedom: Another Casualty of the Gay Agenda

By Frank Turek. Posted on 28 August 2013 by The Christian Post.

If you think that same sex marriage and "non-discrimination" laws are all about love and tolerance, you couldn't be more wrong. A decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court last week clearly shows why. The decision is itself intolerant and discriminatory.

According to the Court, Christian photographer Elane Huguenin violated New Mexico's "non-discrimination" law by politely declining to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony. Although the lesbian couple that brought the complaint easily found another photographer, Elane Photography now must pay nearly $7,000 in court costs for merely exercising her First Amendment rights.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was put in place to prevent exactly what the New Mexico Supreme Court has done: using the strong arm of government to force citizens to advocate (not just tolerate) ideas and behaviors that contradict their religious or moral convictions. Forcing people to support same sex weddings or commitment ceremonies is forcing them to advocate same sex behavior.

The First Amendment protects not only the right to free speech, but also the right not to be coerced into speech. Former Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger wrote, "The right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. . . . A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). Even the U.N. Human Rights Committee recognizes a universal human right not to be coerced into advocating any idea. (You know our country is stuck on stupid when our courts are getting human rights lessons from the U.N.!)

Now, if you justify this decision because you disagree with Elane Photography's religious or moral position, you're not thinking like an American (or a U.N. person). Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?

It is important to understand that Elane Photography was not refusing service because of the "sexual orientation" or sexual attractions of the couple. In fact, Elane Photography was happy to work with lesbian clients on other projects that did not involve advocating homosexual behavior (for example, taking professional head shots). In this case however, she declined service because she did not want to use her artistic talents to advocate sexual actions that went against her moral and religious beliefs.

But isn't this just like a white photographer refusing to photograph a black wedding? I know it's very fashionable to compare homosexuality to race, but the comparison is completely fallacious. And as Chesterton said, "Fallacies do not cease becoming fallacies when they become fashions."

First, homosexuality, unlike race, is a behavior, and statistically a harmful behavior. As a result, people have good moral reasons-even beyond religious beliefs-for opposing or not wanting to advocate homosexual behavior. But since race hurts no one, there is no moral justification for refusing to serve someone merely due to race.

Second, people are born into their race but not their sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is always a choice, race never is. You will find many former homosexuals, but you will never find a former African American. (I know whom you're thinking about. Let him rest in peace!).

Now, some believe there is a gay gene for homosexual attractions. But there's not only no evidence for a gay gene, identical twin studies suggest it doesn't exist. Yet even if we one day find some kind of genetic component to homosexual attractions, that would not mean that homosexual actions must be advocated by anyone. Being born with certain tendencies doesn't necessarily justify acting on those tendencies. If it did, Elane Huguenin could have justified her actions by simply claiming that she was born with the anti-gay gene!

New Mexico Justice Richard C. Bosson justified his actions this way: "The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life."

I have a newsflash for Justice Bosson: People in North Korea and Iran are free to think, believe and pray to the God of their choice too! But that's not freedom of religion. The "free exercise" of religion means that you can actually live according to your religious beliefs. Justice Bosson and his misguided colleagues are essentially saying, "You can be a Christian as long as you don't act like a Christian. It's fine if your pastor or the Bible tells you to do something, as long as you don't actually do it." So we can't obey God anymore? Is that the "price" we have to pay, Justice Bosson? Looks like the time for peaceful civil disobedience is here. Jail anyone?

Despite his inane ruling, Justice Bosson does seem to recognize the chilling implications of his decision. He wrote: "…the Huguenins… now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views."

This is only one of many "tangible marks" that the mainstream media continues to ignore as they cheer on intolerance disguised as "gay rights." There is a long and growing list of marks tattooed on people of faith and people of conscience who are being discriminated against beyond just the Huguenins. This is not tolerance or "non-discrimination." It is exactly the opposite. It is totalitarianism-do what we say, or else!

Our country has a choice to make: either maintain the value of freedom enshrined in our Constitution, or usurp the value of freedom by mandating conformity to the gay agenda. Unless the church and other freedom-loving people begin to speak up and get involved – and by that I mean in politics, education, the media, and law-we will lose the very freedoms our founders spilled their blood to secure.

Yes, there is a price to pay. But the price isn't giving up your Constitutional rights as the New Mexico Supreme Court mandates. The price is getting involved to protect those rights.

P.S. Click here https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/cross-examined/id337782458 and go to the top of the list to hear my in-depth interview with Jordan Lorence, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney who argued the case for Elane Photography. You can also see Jordan interviewed by Shannon Bream here. ADF is considering an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Link: http://m.christianpost.com/news/freedom-another-casualty-of-the-gay-agenda--103184/cpt

Gay Rights Advocates, Victims Turned Into Bullies

By RACHEL ZOLL. Published by AP on 25 August 2013.

The battle over gay marriage is heating up in the states, energizing religious groups that oppose same-sex relationships — but also dividing them.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court gave married gays and heterosexuals equal status under federal law, but did not declare a nationwide right for gays to marry, setting the stage for state-by-state decisions. So faith leaders are forming new coalitions and preparing for the legislative and courtroom battles ahead.

Yet, traditional religious leaders, their supporters and the First Amendment attorneys advising them are divided over strategy and goals, raising questions about how much they can influence the outcome:

— Several religious liberty experts say conservative faith groups should take a pragmatic approach given the advances in gay rights. Offer to stop fighting same-sex marriage laws in exchange for broad religious exemptions, these attorneys say. "If they need to get those religious accommodations, they're going to have to move now," said Robin Fretwell Wilson, a family law specialist at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Critics reject the idea as a premature surrender.

— Religious leaders lobbying for exemptions can't agree how broad they should be. A major difference is over whether for-profit companies should qualify for a faith-based exception.

— Some religious liberty advocates and faith leaders are telling houses of worship they could be forced to host gay weddings, with their clergy required to officiate. The Louisiana Baptist Convention is advising congregations to rewrite their bylaws to state they only allow heterosexual marriage ceremonies, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty group that opposes same-sex marriage, is advising the same. But legal experts across a spectrum of views on gay rights say it can't happen given strong First Amendment protections for what happens inside the sanctuary.

"A few people at both ends of the spectrum have talked about religion and religious freedom in a way that is really destructive," said Brian Walsh, executive director of the Ethics & Public Policy's American Religious Freedom program which has formed legislative caucuses so far in 18 states. "I think they've made it polarized and difficult to understand."

The issue of accommodating religious opponents has already been a sticking point in legislative battles. In Rhode Island and Delaware, disputes over broader religious exemptions led to the failure of some same-sex union bills. Both states went on to approve civil unions in 2011, then same-sex marriage this year. In New York, gay marriage became law only after Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state's top two legislators struck an eleventh-hour compromise on religious exemptions.

Still, advocates for stronger religious protections haven't won anything close to what they've sought in the 13 states and the District of Columbia where gay marriage has been recognized.

A few states have approved specific religious exemptions related to housing or pre-marital counseling, or benefits for workers in private, faith-based groups, such as the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization, according to analysis by Fretwell Wilson. Most of the states have protected religiously affiliated nonprofits from potential government penalty for refusing to host same-sex marriage ceremonies.

The only other protection written into the laws is a provision First Amendment scholars consider redundant: All spell out that clergy are exempt from performing same-sex ceremonies and can't be sued for their refusal.

The overall result: a patchwork of regulation, with gaps that are likely to become the target of lawsuits. Massachusetts and Iowa, where same-sex marriage won recognition through the courts, have approved no enhanced religious exemptions related to the rulings.

The statehouse negotiations concern what, if any, exemptions religious believers should have in the public arena. Should a religious social service agency with government funding be required to legally recognize married same-sex couples in all circumstances? Should a congregation that makes money renting property to the public be required to allow gay wedding receptions in the space?

Some advocates go further, arguing religious accommodations should extend in some cases to individuals. In this view, owners of a mom-and-pop bakery that makes wedding cakes should be exempt. So too should the county clerk who issues marriage licenses, as long as someone else in the clerk's office can step in easily and provide the service.

Many cities and states have anti-discrimination ordinances that include sexual orientation, setting up fines or other penalties for failing to comply. Absent an exemption, objectors may have to shut down their businesses or give up their jobs, religious leaders say. They argue losing your livelihood is too harsh a punishment for views on such a core religious issue as marriage.

But gay rights advocates say this argument puts too heavy a burden on gays and lesbians, and presents them with an unfair set of choices.

"In some states, the price of equality in marriage has been agreeing to give up protections against discrimination as part of the negotiations," said Jenny Pizer, senior counsel for the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "In ways, I think, other politically vulnerable groups are not required to pay that price."

Advocates for the exemptions don't agree on where they should go from here.

Nathan Diament, policy director for the Orthodox Union, which represents Orthodox Jewish congregations and has been a prominent voice on religious liberty issues, said his group hasn't taken a position on the religious rights of businesses or employers, but has advocated for broader religious exemptions for employees, such as a clerk who issues marriage licenses. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which in the last two years has made religious freedom a signature policy issue, believes any organization with faith objections, whether a for-profit corporation or a nonprofit agency, should be exempt.

Fretwell Wilson is among legal experts urging faith groups to be practical, in light of growing public support for gay relationships, and focus solely on securing exemptions, instead of trying to block a specific gay marriage law. She is part of an informal group of lawyers who have been drafting model language for exemptions to share with state lawmakers. These legal experts differ on whether same-sex marriage should be recognized, but agree on the potential risks to religious liberty.

"The religious community would have done much better to ask for protection for their religious liberty instead of trying to stop same-sex marriage and try to prevent it for everybody," said church-state expert Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia, who is recommending the more pragmatic course. "The more same-sex marriage seems inevitable, the less likely we are to see religious liberty protection in blue states."

But Matthew Franck, of the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank in Princeton, N.J., argued the only real protection for religious freedom is maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. He said same-sex marriage advocates are unlikely to tolerate for long any "deviations from the 'new normal' they wish to create," so he predicted religious exemptions granted now will eventually be repealed.

"We have not lost the fight for the truth about marriage, and surrendering the field is premature," Franck said. "I continue to hope that it will never finally be necessary, and I work to make that hope a reality."

Whatever strategy the faith groups choose, there's no sign gay rights advocates are prepared to make major concessions.

Jonathan Rauch, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is one of the very few gay-rights supporters publicly urging fellow advocates to be more magnanimous. He argues that offering religious accommodations makes sense politically.

"I think there's a real risk that we will overreach and set up the other side to portray itself as the victim if we decide we have to stamp out every instance of religious based anti-gay discrimination," Rauch said. "I also think that there's a moral reason. What the gay rights movement is fighting for is not just equality for gays but freedom of conscience to live openly according to their identity. I don't think we should be in the business of being as intolerant of others as they were to us."

Others reject such accommodations.

Rose Saxe, an ACLU senior staff attorney, said the call for a middle ground, "while trying to sound reasonable, is really asking for a license to discriminate." And the Rev. Darlene Nipper of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said religious groups have another choice: They can accept same-sex marriage.

Link:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/divide-over-religious-exemptions-gay-marriage

Oh My 1Malaysia!

The owner of the resort in Kota Tinggi who allowed a group of Buddhist monks to meditate in a surau there has been remanded for four days. The Star online reported court registrar Hairul Azhar Mohamad issued the remand order today against the resort owner who is a Singaporean with Malaysian permanent resident status.

The 45-year-old man was arrested on Sunday afternoon at the Tanjung Sutera Resort and is currently being investigated under Section 295 of the Penal Code for defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.

His arrest came after a YouTube video portrayed a group who looked like monks conducting religious prayers in a surau, leading a group in meditation in front of a portrait of Buddha. The 63-second video called "Chinese Buddhist pray in surau: surau becomes temple" was uploaded on Aug 10 and has generated more than 10,000 views.

It was reported in Berita Harian yesterday that the resort owner defended his action saying that he did not think the action of giving permission to believers of other religions to use the surau was wrong.

He was quoted as saying: “This is because they only wanted to use the surau for meditation. "So we allowed them to use the surau in the resort but their bringing other religious items into the surau was done without my knowledge."

Link: 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/resort-owner-remanded-for-allowing-buddihist-monks-to-use-surau-for-meditat

A Scottish church has become the first in the UK to share its premises with Muslim worshippers. St John’s Episcopal Church in Aberdeen now welcomes hundreds of Muslims praying five times a day in their building as the nearby mosque was so small that they were forced to worship outside.

The minister of St John's, Rev Isaac Poobalan, has handed over part of the church hall to Chief Imam Ahmed Megharbi and the imam has led prayers in the main chapel. Rev Poobalan said today that he would not be true to his faith if he did not offer to help. He said: 'Praying is never wrong. My job is to encourage people to pray.

'The mosque was so full at times, there would be people outside in the wind and rain praying. 'I knew I couldn’t just let this happen - because I would be abandoning what the Bible teaches us about how we should treat our neighbours.

'When I spoke to people at the church about the situation, someone actually said to me this was not our problem, but I had seen it with my own eyes, so it was a problem. Rev Poobalan said: 'They were out there praying and the snow came on for the first time in winter, it was really hard to watch. 'When they were doing the prayer they had their hands and feet exposed and they were sitting on on the pavement, which is very rough. 'You could even see them breathing because it was so cold and I think when I saw that, the visual impact was such that I just couldn't walk past.

'It felt wrong, mainly because the church is next door, it's a big building and it remains empty on a Friday lunchtime which is when they need the place most as that's when they are at their busiest. 'We had something we could offer and they were just standing out in the cold and I said to my congregation "we need to do something".'

Rev Poobalan said he wanted the move to help build bridges between Christians and Muslims after some initial resistance from his congregation about the move. He said: 'It's a move that is so basic and fundamental. It has nothing to do with religion - it's all based on human need. 'The religious divide shouldn't divide us as people. 

'But I anticipated there would be some opposition as it's strange and new and there was some natural anxiety in the beginning. 'But once people realised that there is more commonality between us. 'I certainly hope, wish and pray that this will help relations between the two religions.

'When I spoke to the imam there was some hesitation on their part too, because this has never been done before. 'But they took us up on the offer and it has been a positive relationship.'

Read more here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2295149/Christians-roll-welcome-Muslims-having-pray-wind-rain-mosque-small.html#ixzz2boFIeOP2

UK Religious Institutions Being Forced To Perform Same-sex Marriages Against Their Faith

By Katherine Weber. Published by The Christian Post on 2 August 2013.

A gay couple in Great Britain has announced plans to pursue legal action against the Church of England for refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, less than one month after the country officially legalized gay mariage, but explicitly excluded the Church from being forced to conduct the ceremonies as they go against biblical teachings.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow and his partner, Tony, have been considered by many in Great Britain to be the "poster couple" for same-sex marriage legalization, as they became the first gay parents in 1999 through surrogacy, and have since had five other children through surrogacy. The couple had a civil partnership ceremony in 2006, and own a surrogate center in Chandlers Quay, Maldon. 

The gay marriage legislation approved in Great Britain earlier this year, known as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, included a "quadruple lock" meant to protect the Church of England and other religious institutions from being forced to perform same-sex marriages against their faith. Under the current law, churches may "opt-in" to perform same-sex marriages, but they cannot be forced to conduct ceremonies.

Despite that highly-publicized safeguard being included in the legislation, many critics believed that gay activists would ignore that exclusion and continue to push for churches to be forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies against their will. Now just weeks after the legislation was passed, it appears those fears were well-founded; Drewitt-Barlow and his partner argue that they wish to "test" this protection in court. The couple have claimed that they are practicing Christians and they want their children to see them wed in a church ceremony.

"We are happy for gay marriage to be recognised – in that sense it is a big step. But it is actually a small step because it is something we still cannot actually do," Drewitt-Barlow told the Essex Chronicle in a recent interview, adding he and his partner "need to convince the church that it is the right thing for our community for them to recognise as practicing Christians."

"It upsets me because I want it so much – a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just don't think it is going to happen straight away," Drewitt-Barlow continued, adding "as much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want."

The couple told Gay Star News that they have been speaking to the legal counsel at Cannon Law experience, which believes the couple may in fact have a case.

Additionally, the couple contends that some of the "biggest critics" of their decision to sue the Church of England have been members of the gay community, who have reportedly told the couple that they "should be grateful for what we have and telling us we should not feel we are representing the gay community as a whole." The couple argues, however, that this is a personal decision and they are not doing it on behalf of the same-sex community.

When introducing the "quadruple lock" plan for same-sex marriage in December, England's culture secretary Maria Miller assured the Church of England, the Catholic Church, and other religious groups that the new law would protect them from being forced to perform same-sex ceremonies. The law bans the Church of England and Church in Wales from performing same-sex marriages, and requires other religious organizations to "opt-in" in order to perform gay wedding ceremonies. 

However, Justice Minister Crispin Blunt admitted in June 2012 that the Same-Sex Couples Act's protection of churches could possibly be challenged in court.

"We're seeking to protect, indeed, proscribe religious organizations from offering gay marriage," Blunt, who is openly gay, said in June 2012.

"That may be problematic legally, but the proposal the Government are putting forward is that marriage should be equal in the eyes of the state whether it's between a same-sex couple or between a man and a woman. We'll have to see what happens with that," Blunt added.

The Church of England and the Catholic Church both spoke out at the time, arguing that they were suspicious over whether the promised safeguards granted to religious groups would hold up in courts, and they feared that churches may eventually be forced to perform same-sex marriage unions to avoid discrimination lawsuits. Others argued such a development would force churches to stop performing all marriages as they would not be permitted by church rules to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Colin Hart, director for the Coalition for Marriage, a pro-biblical marriage advocacy group, told the Daily Mail that the Church of England's previous concerns regarding their protection are warranted. 

"The ink's not even dry on the Bill and churches are already facing litigation. We warned Mr. Cameron this would happen, we told him he was making promises that he couldn't possibly keep," Hart said. "He didn't listen. He didn't care. He's the one who has created this mess."

"Mr. Cameron's chickens are coming home to roost and it will be ordinary people with a religious belief who yet again fall victim to the totalitarian forces of political correctness," Hart continued.

"We now face the real prospect of churches having to choose between stopping conducting weddings, or vicars, and priests defying the law and finding themselves languishing in the dock," Hart added.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 cleared parliament earlier in July and was officially signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II on July 17. The first same-sex weddings are expected to commence in summer 2014.

Link: 
http://m.global.christianpost.com/news/church-of-england-to-be-sued-for-refusing-to-perform-same-sex-marriages-just-a-month-after-prime-minister-promised-protection-101487/

BN woos anti-Christian votes

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has expressed support for the appeal to overturn a High Court ruling which allows the use of the Arabic term “Allah” for God by non-Muslim groups in Malaysia, according to an interview with global news station Al Jazeera.

The caretaker prime minister also told Al Jazeera English’s Veronica Pedrosa in the interview, to be aired tomorrow, that he did not intend to have a public election debate with Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim before the May 5 polls.

“The concept of Allah is different in the Muslim sense than in the Christian sense, we should not upset the Muslims and Muslims should not upset the Christians, we are living in harmony for years and it should continue,” he was quoted as saying in an excerpt distributed by Al Jazeera English.

The Court of Appeal has fixed May 30 for another case management on the government and Home Ministry’s appeal against the 2009 High Court decision that the word “Allah” can be used by the Catholic weekly newspaper Herald.

In 2007, the government limited the usage of the term to the Muslim context only. This was revoked by the High Court two years later as the judge said the law was unconstitutional. Putrajaya appealed the ruling and the short-lived implementation of the 2009 court verdict has since been suspended.

After the ruling, there was a series of firebombing and stones thrown at several houses of worship in Kuala Lumpur. Some of the culprits were charged and later punished but the case continues to rankle.

Read more here: 

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/najib-defends-allah-ban-rules-out-election-debate

With the Perkasa duo, Ibrahim Ali and Zulkifli Noordin, entering the fray as Umno-sponsored parliamentary candidates, racism and religious bigotry are set to rear their ugly heads again especially over the “Allah” controversy.

A manifestation of such extremism is the extent to which fringe Malay groups like Perkasa would go to advance their agenda. Cause for concern is their incendiary speeches over the controversy of the use of the word “Allah” to refer to God by non-Muslims. Ibrahim even suggested recently an open season for burning bibles (pesta membakar Alkitab). Nothing can be more seditious and incendiary. Yet this was tolerated by the authorities...

The “Allah” controversy is more than just a word. It is about freedom of religion and about unreasonable government policies and laws that seek to place non-Muslims under the scope of Islamic enactments and jurisdiction.

Two-thirds of the church in Malaysia is made up of Bumiputera Christians in Sabah and Sarawak who use the Alkitab which contains the word “Allah” to refer to God. They view the prohibition on the use of the “Allah” word and restricted use of the Alkitab as infringing on their freedom of religion.

Read more here:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/allah-is-more-than-just-a-word-bob-teoh/

Before the Sarawak state election in 2011, he came up with a 10-point formula to resolve the issue of shipments of Malay-language bibles, to cater to Bumiputera Christians, that were blocked and confiscated before they were subsequently released by the government.

The report also said that in the 10-point resolution, the Cabinet, through its minister Datuk Seri Idris Jala, assured the sizeable Bumiputera Christian population in Sabah and Sarawak that they were free to bring in and use their bibles in Malay as well as in indigenous languages.

And today, Jala apparently declined to comment when asked about Najib’s latest backing for the appeal against the High Court ruling. So, when BN needed the Christian vote before the Sarawak polls, they got Jala to come out with the 10-point resolution but today the minister plays dumb. Maybe this isn’t part of your KPI, minister?

Read more here:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/bns-wavering-stand-on-allah-felix-ong/

Christians will not stop calling their God “Allah” even if the courts stop them from doing so in Muslim-majority Malaysia, says UPKO president Tan Sri Bernard Dompok, whose party is part of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition government...

The Christian community forms about a quarter of Sabah’s population and almost half of Sarawak’s population, where they mainly worship in Bahasa Malaysia church services and read Malay-language bibles.

Read more here:

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/christians-to-continue-using-allah-despite-government-appeal-says-dompok