|
|
| Inland Empire News | Calendar | Community Briefs | Ongoing Meetings | Event Guidelines | Event Submission Form |
|
|
|
| Inland Empire News |
|
|
SUBSCRIBE |
|
Chaplaincy program helps thousands of Inland Empire’s at- risk youth
by Carol R. Thomas
HEMET, Calif. — When Ozzie Oswald became a Christian 25 years ago he never could have foreseen the ways God would use him to help thousands of people in the Inland Empire.
Then, in his mid-20s, Oswald quit his high-paying marketing job and joined forces with California Family Life Center, a Hemet-based non-profit organization that provides safety, comfort and healing to children suffering abuse and abandonment.
DOWNLOAD FOR FULL STORY
National Teen Challenge ministry celebrates five decades of service
CE staff report
Teen Challenge chapters across the country are celebrating the ministry’s 50th year of restoring beat up and run-down men and women, transforming alcohol- and drug-infected lives for sober, Jesus-filled days.
The lives of thousands of men and women who have been redeemed through the Christ-centered ministry of Teen Challenge will be celebrated in a series of events across the country.
DOWNLOAD FOR FULL STORY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
News content on the Christian Examiner site is only a portion of what is published in our regional print editions.
Click to subscribe
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| California Legislative News |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPINION
The Separation Doctrine: Demise of religious freedom
by Everett Rice
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — This November, California voters will go to the polls to vote for a new president, and new congressional and legislative representatives, and to determine if the traditional understanding of marriage—as being between man and woman—should be sustained as intended by the voters, thus over-ruling the California Supreme Court.
In the court’s overturning of Proposition 22—a voter-approved initiative passed in 2000—their action ran contrary to the will of the people, once again usurping the role granted to the electorate and their representative bodies.
It is this type of action that has jeopardized religious freedom. Specifically, the court’s creation of the “separation doctrine”—an imaginary line between religion and the state—is indicative of how the court has transcended its constitutional role.
One of the most common phrases used today to limit religious freedom is “separation of church and state.” Many believe that phrase is a part of our United States Constitution. However, it is not. The phrase “separation of church and state” is actually a recent phenomenon.
It was not until 1947, in Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, that the foundation for the modern misconception about the “separation of church and state” finds its roots. In a case in which a taxpayer filed suit against a New Jersey Township that provided transportation costs to parents of students attending parochial schools, Everson argued that such an ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. While the court acknowledged that the state had not violated either amendment, Justice Hugo Black, author of the opinion, wrote, “the First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.”
It is these words that have given rise to the current separation view.
While many have been quick to usurp Black’s words, they failed to assimilate his true meaning. What they neglected to recognize was Black’s reliance on the original intent of the First Amendment. He reasoned that the Constitution required the federal government to treat all religions and the non-religious as equals—not to favor one religion, nor infringe on the free expression of one’s religious beliefs. As all children were provided the same service—transportation—there was no violation.
Justice Black’s understanding of the First Amendment was based on its historical roots. He recognized the intent of the framers of the Constitution in stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…,” as their desire to ensure no one religion or denomination would garner power over another, and to allow individuals to express their religious convictions freely.
However, since Justice Black’s opinion, there has been continued judicial debate over the “Establishment Clause” (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and the “Free Exercise Clause” (or prohibiting the free-exercise thereof), even though, nowhere within the First Amendment or the Constitution, will you find the phrase, “separation of church and state.”
The question must then be asked: If no such phrase is in our Constitution, nor is a matter of law, where does it find its validity and strength?
Simply, when a nation of laws no longer relies on the law, but on judicial opinions, opinions become the law of the land. No longer are the laws established by people or their elected representative as designed, but instead by an oligarchial few, as we Californians have repeatedly experienced over the years —with a judiciary that writes law based on its own precepts versus that of the electorate.
Since the Everson decision and the reliance on the “separation doctrine,” we have seen a steady assault on religious freedom. While lacking constitutional authority, the impact of the separation doctrine has had a tremendous impact on religious liberty, as courts rely on judicial excuse (opinions) rather than the established law.
Rice is the legislative coordinator for the California Family Council.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
