Hammering out their faith
by Lori Arnold
LOS ANGELES, Calif. — Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles is seeking volunteers for its annual “Building on Faith Week,” set for Sept. 14 to 21.
“This is our 25th year of doing faith week,” said Patty Lee, Faith and Community Relations Manager for the Los Angeles chapter. “It focuses on our ongoing partnership with the faith community.”
Since its 1976 founding, the faith-based Habitat has constructed more than 250,000 houses worldwide, providing affordable shelter to more than 1 million in 3,000 communities. The ministry is able to provide affordable housing by using volunteer labor and donations of money and materials to construct the homes.
Those receiving the homes, called partners, are then sold the home at cost and given no-interest loans. In addition, the qualifying families pay no more than one-third of their income toward their monthly mortgage. The partners also contribute physically with hundreds of hours of their own “sweat labor.” Proceeds from the partner mortgages are used to fund more Habitat homes.
DOWNLOAD FOR FULL STORY
|
|
|
|
| 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
News content on the Christian Examiner site is only a portion of what is published in our regional print editions.
Click to subscribe
|
|
|
