U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb ruled that the statute that created the National Day of Prayer violates the Constitution's prohibition against the government establishment of religion.

Judge Crabb, an appointee of former President Jimmy Carter, wrote in her decision that '"some forms of 'ceremonial deism,' such as legislative prayer, do not violate the establishment clause." But she said the National Day of Prayer goes too far.

Read more at The Washington Times.

Individual violators face a fine up to $200 or up to three months in jail; corporations face fines up to $1,000.

Rob Erich, a High School Social Studies Teacher at the Delap Seventh-day Adventist School in Majuro, notes that there is a general feeling in the community that "the nation has been growing too secular and a Christian nation should encourage church attendance." There is also a concern of drunkenness on Sunday that is "causing problems when others are trying to worship."

Erich and fellow teacher Rudy Estanque attended the deliberation of the Bill in the Island legislature. "The main people brought together to discuss this bill were pastors from a variety of churches," he said, " - very few business owners or other non-religious individuals were in attendance. As the meeting began, the Attorney General stated that the law was unconstitutional, followed by many church leaders stating that it was a good idea (with the occasional leader against it). "

Erich and Estanque were given the opportunity to make a presentation. They complimented the Nitijela on its desire to provide for both the nation's physical and spiritual well-being and ended by wishing God's leading in making the difficult decision.

The teachers argued that the bill went against RMI constitution. The Bible and God encourage a relationship based on love, not force. "Throughout history," they maintained, "when religions and nations combine the results are often negative - the crusades, the inquisition, and many of the current events going on in the Middle East." As Adventists the teachers noted that even if the law were to promote these activities on Saturday instead of Sunday, they would still be against such a law as they believe a forced worship is not what God desires.

"The proper response to creeping secularism is not legislative, but spiritual," said Alan Reinach, Director of Public Affairs at the Pacific Union Conference of the Adventist Church in California, "the clergy should come together and fast and pray for revival. We can recognize the legitimacy of the problem, but propose a more effective solution. Not all problems are susceptible to legislative fixes."

Giff Johnson, Editor of The Marshall Islands Journal, notes that the legislative committee could report it out for second reading later this week (the parliament recesses next week until August) or shelve it until the August session. "By Friday," he states, "we should have a better reading on whether it will move forward. I think it is unlikely to, but I could be wrong."

"Obviously we are concerned," noted Barry Bussey, Director of Legislative Affairs for the Seventh-day Adventist Church on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.. "One can certainly understand the social concerns that often lead to a desire for such legislation. But, as Erich and Estanque pointed out to the legislature, history is replete with examples that good motives do not necessarily make good law. There needs to be a coming together in the community so that there is mutual respect for all concerned. Certainly Adventists must be mindful of their Sunday-keeping neighbors treating all with the greatest respect and yet ensuring religious freedom is maintained for all citizens." Bussey has requested further information from the office of Del. Gregorio "Kilili" Sablan, who represents the Northern Mariana Islands in Washington, DC.

via email from NARLA

Fox News analyst Brit Hume said "widespread media bias against Christianity" was to blame for criticism of his suggestion that Tiger Woods should embrace Christianity to find redemption. "Instead of urging that Tiger Woods turn to Christianity, if I had said what he needed to do was to strengthen his Buddhist commitment or turn to Hinduism, I don't think anybody would have said a word," Hume told Christianity Today. "It's Christ and Christianity that get people stirred up."

I don't know about you, but I think it's awesome that Christ is still stirring people up! It's easy to become discouraged, as a Christian, when surrounded by so much negativity towards Christ and Christianity. But then I think, if Christ wasn't really the Way the Truth and the Life no one would care, so we must be on the right track!

For more religious liberty articles and information visit the North American Religious Liberty Association website at www.religiousliberty.info.

NARLA West Newsletter, July-August

On May 10, at a Freedom Day Celebration hosted by the Carlsbad Northcoast Christian Fellowship of Seventh-day Adventist, Judge Victor Ramirez spoke about how rights protected by Habeas Corpus (Amendments 4, 5, 6 & 14) have been affected since 9/11. He touched on the USA Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Military Commissions Act, emphasizing the unprecedented degree of secrecy and secret courts prevalent since 9-11. The following article is based on the author’s recollection, and his continued research, since no recording or transcript was made of Judge Ramirez’ presentation. No transcription or recordings of the event were made so the opinions expressed represent the recollections of the author. Judge Ramirez (R) was Judge of the Superior Court in San Diego and was the recipient of the University Of San Diego School Of Law’s Most Distinguished Alumni Jurist Award. A brief constitutional history was presented to lay a foundation for Judge Ramirez’ presentation.

Out of this struggle was born the Bill of Rights which has been the foundation of a free society for more than two centuries. These amendments protect freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, the denial of unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel and unusual punishment and no compelled self incrimination. In short, Life, Liberty and Property may not be deprived without “due process of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas states: “We should always start, when we read the Constitution, by reading the Declaration . . .”i Justice Thomas, as well as other unitary judges, contends that the Declaration of Independence contains the structure of the Constitution. The weight of historical scholarship rejects any hint that the Declaration of Independence was ever considered part of the legal foundation of the new nation. Instead, it was written to justify separation from England. It was a revolutionary polemic, not law. In writing the Declaration, Jefferson invoked the “Laws of Nature” and “Unalienable Rights” which are derived from “Nature’s God.” He includes among these Rights “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property).” Furthermore, he proposes that the Government derives its power from “the consent of the governed.” Jefferson didn’t invent this theory; it came from the pen of the humanist philosopher John Locke (1632-1704). Locke proposed that “The State of Nature” was governed by the “Laws of Nature” so that humans are “by nature” “free, equal and independent.” He therefore proposes that humans are granted “Life, Liberty and Property” by the Laws of Nature – NOT by the government.

To Jefferson and other Founding Fathers, it was not only necessary to establish a system of checks and balances in the Constitution but to establish a Bill of Explicit “Rights” to prevent the government from infringing on the “Natural Rights” granted to the citizenry directly from “Nature” and “Nature’s God”.

The Dire Effects of Disaster

9/11 has immersed the nation in a climate of change. Disaster creates conditions particularly fitted to foster change and alter belief systems. Every politician knows disaster can be manipulated to abandon previously held values. Following 9-11 fifty seven per-cent of the population expressed a willingness to exchange their civil liberties for security. In the name of security, Americans have been surrendering the right of habeas corpus, the right to be secure in one’s home and person against unreasonable searches and seizures; the obligation to obtain a search warrant only upon the basis of probable cause, and the right to a speedy trial and due process of law.

These are the principles which have established the United States as a leader among nations and in part have become known as the “Rule of Law.” This is what all Presidents and Legislators are sworn to uphold and defend. This is the subject Judge Ramirez addressed. The Constitution does not recognize a war time exemption from respecting individual rights. No branch of government is above the law, or has the right to trample on individual rights in the name of national security. A functioning Democracy must have in place procedures for proper transparency, verification and accountability.

Virtually every president since Washington has justified the withholding of information from Congress. Congress often fails to exercise its Constitutional power of oversight, and has knowingly granted the President some of its power. The War Powers Act of 1973 is a classic example, wherein Congress delegated some of its authority with respect to declaring war to the Executive. Currently, a bipartisan committee is recommending new legislation, since the War Powers Act “has failed to promote co-operation between the executive and legislative branches.”ii

Three times in the past the government, during a time of war, has temporarily altered Habeas Corpus to prevent potential perils. A nation that operates within the rule of law expects the Executive to perform according to the bounds of those rules or be held accountable. “We the people” have a right to expect a reasonable working relationship between Congress and the Executive – especially in a time of war. The Executive branch, however, has informed us that the war on Terror presents a permanent crisis. The language of National Survival is raised to justify incursion into civil liberties protections. Every submission to these strategies leads to increased executive power. Secrecy is routinely but wrongly invoked in the name of national security. Secrecy is the enemy of democracy, which requires transparency, verification and accountability.

These tactics have led to an inordinate increase of executive power and provided an avenue to circumvent both Congress and the courts. A “war model” which presumes a permanent condition of war and a constant threat to National Security makes “aggrandizement of the Presidency urgently necessary.”iii Congress enacted The Federal Register Act of 1935, The Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, and the Freedom of Information Act of 1978 to insist on proper oversight and publication of proceedings because secret laws are the antithesis of a free and open society.

The Creeping Culture of Secrecy

In recent years there has been an increase of unpublicized secret laws, and secrecy has become a central issue. In 1997 “The Executive Branch assumed authority both for structuring and classification systems and for deciding the grounds upon which secrets should be created and maintained.”iv This has resulted in the ability of the Executive to classify information as Top Secret or Secret and make the process of transparency, verification and accountability either difficult or altogether impossible. In the case of Valerie Plame it was impossible to proceed because the evidence had been classified and was unavailable – no evidence no case!

When it comes to the process of transparency Sean Gonsalves states: “We’re talking everything from secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to secret Presidential directives and transportation security orders.”v

In August of 2007 the court was petitioned to make public the rulings of the FISA Court, which implicates the privacy of American citizens, after redacting classified information. The court claimed it didn’t have the expertise to decide what information should be redacted! There has also been a decline in the publications of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). “One secret OLC opinion . . . holds that executive orders, which are binding on executive branch agencies and are published in The Federal Register, can be unilaterally abrogated by the President without public notice."vi Such orders undercut the power of Congress to respond to the charge and exercise its own power. “Worse, the OLC policy ... implies a right to actively mislead Congress and the public."vii On April 30, 2008 a Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on “Secret Law and the Threat to Democratic and Accountable Government” in which Steve Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, a non-governmental policy research and advocacy organization testified. Here is a summary of his testimony:

Secret law that is inaccessible to the public is inherently antithetical to democracy and foreign to the tradition of open publication that has characterized most of American legal history. Yet there has been a discernable increase in secret law and regulation in recent years. This testimony describes several of the major categories of secret law, including secret interpretations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, secret opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, secret Presidential directives, secret transportation security directives, and more. Legislative intervention may be required to reverse the growth of secret law. viii

Secret Laws are growing and they seriously affect fundamental political controversies over such issues as domestic surveillance, torture and a host of other issues.

The FISA Act

Congress enacted the FISA Act in 1978, largely in reaction to the abuses of the Nixon administration. It restricted domestic spying, and laid down rules and procedures to protect the privacy of Americans. In the CRS Report for Congress, Attorney General Griffin Bell testified: “President Carter stated it very well in announcing this bill when he said that ‘one of the most difficult tasks in a free society like our own is the correlation between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation’s security on the one hand, and the preservation of basic human rights on the other.’”ix

In the wake of 9/11, the Executive Branch, its attorneys and lawyers from the Justice Department and National Security Agency authorized a program to go around the FISA court without FISA court knowledge. The FISA court was established to handle the most sensitive national security issues but it required the inspection and order of a judge which protected “privacy rights”. The reason offered for going around the FISA Court was “the need for speed.”x Judge Ramirez especially discussed the legal difficulty that going around FISA law had created.

The Patriot Act and FISA

The Patriot Act introduced sweeping changes to U.S. Law which included amendments to FISA and more than a dozen other privacy laws. In this article we will consider only changes to FISA laws. It must be recalled that the President ordered wireless wiretapping prior to the Patriot Act. Section 215 of FISA under the Patriot Act expands the power of the FBI to spy on ordinary people living in the U.S. including U.S. citizens.

• The FBI need not show probable cause if the person they seek to investigate is involved in criminal activity
• The FBI can investigate persons because of the improper use of Freedom of Speech
• People may be investigated because of the books they read or because of the web sites they view
• Those served with Section 215 orders are prohibited from disclosing the fact to anyone else – this affects Freedom of Speech guaranteed in the 1st amendment
• Subjects of surveillance are never notified that their privacy has been compromised.

When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, he added an addendum stating that “he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the Act’s expanded powers.” After reporters left the White House signing, he issued a “Signing Statement”. A “signing statement” is an official document in which a President lays out his interpretation of a new law. In this signing statement he states: “He did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that despite the laws’ requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.” xi

Warrantless Wiretap

Few would dispute that some laws needed updating to meet the changing world situation which 9-11 presented. The President, however, considered himself, “above the existing FISA Law.” Ultimately the President publically admitted to a “demonstrably impeachable offense,” in fact, it was the same offense that was in the impeachment charges against President Nixon. The President also stated that he had authorized such surveillance “more than 30 times since the September 11th attacks”. Now here is a very startling thought for the public to ponder. The President stated that he also informed leading members of Congress. This becomes a very important issue. Did the Congress consent when they were informed that the President and The National Security Agency (NSA) were about to intentionally disregard FISA law and the 4th amendment?

In order to circumvent the disastrous legal outcomes of this warrantless wiretapping and secret presidential order, the communication companies involved are seeking legal immunity in the courts. This wiretap affected the privacy rights of perhaps millions of citizens. While this case was pending, Congress approved a bill granting retroactive immunity to the phone companies, AT&T and Verizon. Qwest, to its credit, listened to its general counsel who stated that what the President and NSA wanted done was illegal.

U. S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled that (Warrantless wiretapping) “undisputedly violates the 4th amendment . . . Violates the 1st amendment, and violates the Separation of Powers . . . The Constitution itself has been violated.”xii

What you don’t know will hurt you so here is a further list of secret acts which have been created by the Executive since September 11.

• Secret military tribunals have been created
• Secret court proceedings closed to the public have been ordered
• A massive detention of aliens has been directed
• Detainees have been denied access to counsel and courts. Secrecy has been exercised for an astounding array of material and operations since 1997
• Response to Congressional inquiries has been refused
• Intrusive investigation of citizens (wireless wiretapping) has been ordered in contradiction of FISA demands

“These secret actions have created a fundamental constitutional shift in favor of Presidential power.” xiii

Glen Greenwald, a constitutional and civil rights lawyer quotes the President as stating: “The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch. . .in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . .” This accounts for the reason Harriet Myers, Carl Rove and others, when subpoenaed, have refused to appear to testify but instead have invoked Executive privilege. We may conclude that any limits Congress attempts to place on the use of executive power will likely be ignored. It is small wonder that Judge Ramirez spent much of his time dealing with secrecy and the effect it exerts on the Rule of Law.

The Supreme Court Restores Habeas Corpus and the "Rule of Law"

The laws of the Constitution were designed to remain enforced even in extraordinary circumstances, [such as terrorism]. Liberty and security can only be reconciled in a democracy within the bounds of "rule of law" and our founders decreed that habeas corpus was a rite of primary significance.

In 2006, in the case of Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to prosecute detainees at Guantánamo Bay “lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. Pp. 49-72” xiv

“On June 29, 2006, the Court issued a 5-3 decision holding that it had jurisdiction, that the administration did not have authority to set up these particular military commissions without Congressional authorization, . . .”xv

The failure of transparency and verification finally reached the court in the case of Lakhdar Boumediene a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was held in detention at Guantánamo Bay. His case challenged the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion upholding the Habeas Corpus Laws of The Constitution. A reading of Justice Kennedy’s opinion is highly recommended. It takes a much needed step in alleviating the concerns of Judges such as Judge Ramirez.

In the decision of Boumediene vs. Bush June 12, 2008, the court upheld the long-standing principle of Habeas Corpus for the detainees in Guantánamo. Habeas Corpus is the right to challenge detention before a judge and to seek due process which is at the heart of the Rule of Law.” “Rule of Law” makes it plain that jailers do not determine one’s fate nor does the Executive Branch. It is the law of Habeas Corpus which upholds the belief expressed in the Constitution that “all men are created equal and are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights.” This law separates a civilized society from “the rule of the jungle” and from the “might makes right” philosophy. It helps us understand that ethics is not a law of black and white, of us and them. In fact, the world’s greatest ethicist proclaimed that “we should treat others as we wished to be treated.”

Will Rogers once quipped “I’ve traveled a long way and some of the roads weren’t paved” The road to effectively deal with terrorism and maintain individual freedoms was not and is not currently paved - but the process to pave the road has been invented. The road paving process includes transparency, verification and accountability through the legislative and court systems. The secrecy road leaves only the illusion of freedom.

So the next time you consider the barbaric acts of a nation which marches to the tune of a different drummer – remember this – the world wants to know if we believe what we have declared in our Declaration, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights or if we are just expedient empiricists – true proponent of philosophy “might makes right” who at will deprive the “natural rights” granted to all by “Nature’s God”.

In the next article we will consider the role technology plays in a secret society. Judge Ramirez correctly referred to this as “Big Ears.”

i) “A Conversation with Justice Clarence Thomas” - Imprimis, Oct. 2007, Vol. 36, Number 10
ii) Flaherty, Ann: Panel calls for new war power legislation. Associated Press. July 8, 2008. http://www.examiner.com/a-1477622~Panel_calls_for_new_war_powers_legislation.html
iii) Pallitto, Robert M., and William G. Weaver. Presidential Secrecy and the Law. Maryland: The John Hopkins Press, 2007, 3.
iv) Ibid.
v) Gonsalves, Sean. “How the Government is Passing Secret Laws.” AlterNet. 19 May. 2008. http://www.alternet.org/story/85807
vi) Ibid.
vii) Ibid.
viii) Subcommittee on the Constitution Of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Hearing. Referenced in Gonsalves, Sean. “How the Government is Passing Secret Laws.” AlterNet. May 19. 2008. http://www.alternet.org/story/85807
ix) Bazan, Elizabeth B.: CRS Report for Congress. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues. http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/Eavesdropping/CRSBriefOverview020808.pdf
x) Ryan, Jason: Going Around the FISA Court. ABC News. Jan 24. 2006. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1537691
xi) Greenwald, Glenn. The FBI’s lawbreaking is tied Directly to President Bush. March 9, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/09/fbi/
xii) Rothschild, Matthew. “Is Martial Law Around the Corner?” The Progressive, June 9, 2007 http://www.alternet.org/story/53213
xiii) Pallitto & Weaver, 11.
xiv) Supreme Court of the United States Syllabus. “Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,” United States Secretary of Defense, (Argued March 28, 2006, Decided June 29, 2006). Case Number (05-184). Cited as 548 U.S. 557 (2006). http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf. Pg. 4, Point 4.
xv) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

Many employment discrimination claims based on religion involve instances in which employers refuse to provide an accommodation for an employee's religious practices. Three primary problem areas arise out of conflicts between work requirements and holy day observance, religious garb, and religious grooming requirements. A few claims arise out of conflicts between religious faith and a specific assigned duty. It is not only members of small or poorly understood faiths whoe experience trouble in the workplace. Cases coming before the courts have included Roman Catholics denied time off on Christmas Day; Evangelical Christians denied time off to attend church on Sundays; Sikhs whose employers require them to remove turbans; Jews and Seventh-day Sabbath keepers for refusing to work on Saturdays; Muslim women for wearing head scarves; and attempts to force Rastafarians to cut their dreadlocks.

1. The movement toward a 24/7 work week with consequent conflict with religious demands for rest and worship on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays.


2. Increasing diversity, marked by a broad spectrum of religious traditions, some of which may clash with workplace parameters that do not take into account the religious observances of immigrant peoples.


3. Latent animosity toward some religious traditions after 9/11.


4. A growing emphasis on material values instead of spiritual ones.

U.S. civil rights laws protect people of faith in the workplace, but this protection has proven controversial from its inception, and inadequate in its application.

What follows are examples of ordinary Americans who have suffered in extraordinary ways because their employers refused to take simple steps to respect their religious faith:

• Amric Sign Rathour, a practicing Sikh, was sworn in as a new officer in the NYPD in 2001. During 6 weeks of training, his supervisor requested that he shave his beard and remove his turban. When Rathour refused to compromise the tenets of his faith that requirement of wearing turbans and beards, he was fired.


• Teri Strickland, a SDA, worked ffor a temp agency in Oklahoma City. Her supervisor knew of her sundown-to-sundown Sabbath. One Saturday, her boss called and requested that she come to work on a project. She replied that she would be happy to come into work after sundown, but due to her religious convictions, she could not come in before then. Her boss became upset and fired her. She struggled to find a new job, did some part-time bookkeeping, and eventually turned to cleaning homes and selling her plasma to make ends meet. She completely depleted her savings and lost her home.


• Zeinab Ali, a Muslim, worked for Alamo Rent-A-Car. She was asked by her supervisor to remover her headscarf. Rather than removing it altogether, she replaced the scarf with a smaller covering. After a lengthy period of negotiations, she was laid off. Her efforts to gain legal redress have failed.


• Peter Howard worked in a furniture warehouse. After many years of employment he was ordained as a Methodist minister. Twice he had to miss work because of his ministerial duties, one being a funeral. He asked permission on Thursday, Friday at 5 he was told he could not take Saturday off. He did anyway, to conduct the funeral, and was fired.


• Michael Escoffery is a Rastafarian who worked for FedEx. His hair is in dreadlocks. FedEx maintained a tight personal appearance policy that did not include exemptions applicable to the Rastafarian hairstyle. When he refused to cut his hair, he was fired.


• Theresa George is a Roman Catholic who was convicted she should not work on Sunday. She told her supervisor at Home Depot, and they offered to let her have time off on Sundays to attend mass, but refused to accomodate her need to spend all of Sunday in rest and spiritual reflection. She remained steadfast in her religious conviction; Home Depot refused to explore possible accommodations and fired her.


• Rick Katz, an Orthodox Jew, applied to work as a repair tech with Sears. He received high marks on the employer's test, but was told he would not be hired because he would not work on his Sabbath. Mr. Katz offfered to work on Sunday nights instead of Saturdays, but his offer was rebuffed. Sears consistently told Katz that the reason for its refusal to hire him was that Saturday was the busiest day for repair technicians. Later investigations revealed that in fact Saturday was not the busiest day.

These are just a few of the types of cases that will find redress under WRFA.

One of our team, Shawn D'Abreu, is confined to a wheelchair, and the heat was pretty intense for him as he wheeled himself what seemed like miles to these offices. Shawn is a Public Policy Specialist in St. Louis, MO, and represents those with physical handicaps to obtain fair and reasonable accommodation. He was confident enough to lobby Senator Clair McCaskill's aide, Hannah Mellman.

Lobbyists often meet with Congressional aides, who listen to a condensed version of the bill. They take a copy of the Bill in question, read it and condense it into a brief that the Congressman can read and solidify his position on the issue - pro or con. Most of our meetings, including those with Congressmen Salazar and Allard, were very positive, meaning the aides were able to say the Congressmen were familiar with the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, and generally supportive.

The bill is being held up in committee by Gay and Lesbian groups who are fearful it will be a problem for people with their proclivity because, they suspect, Christians in the workplace will hassle them. Actually, there is nothing in the bill to indicate that would happen, but the WRFA supporters have included wording that specifically prohibits that from happening. It is hoped that this bill will be out of committee and be brought to a vote, finally, after seven years, by the end of the year. The reality is it probably won't happen until after the elections and inauguration.

Visiting these historic office buildings, meeting with these young people who are working tirelessly to aid our Congressmen, was an awe-inspiring honor. To be part of the process in a way that matters as much or more than a vote on election day, was an experience none of us will soon forget.

Thursday evening, the banquet at the Capitol Hilton was a posh affair, but very meaningful. Four Religious Liberty Advocates were given plaques of appreciation, including Carl Wilkens, who spoke at our church RL rally about three years ago. He was the only American to stay in Rwanda during the genocide.

Friday was American history day, and arrangements were made for the participants to visit the White House and the Holocaust Museum. Because of security issues, the White House was very limited. The Holocaust Museum was very depressing; four floors of memorablilia of the Holocaust, including video presentations. It was up to us to visit the Smithsonian as our interests dictated, and that filled up the day! We had to be at the Takoma Park Church for vespers by 7, and listened to Ed Reid both Friday evening and Sabbath morning. We do have the DVDs of his presentation if you are interested, please ask me about borrowing them.

The South Asian Connection website has a great article about the persecutions this Christian minority face. READ MORE

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Have you noticed this Amendment appears in the Montrose Daily Press on the editorial page several times a week? Mr. Woody receives Liberty Magazine. Do you think there is a connection? Take a moment to email him a note of thanks for recognizing the importance of this very first amendment? (SteveW@montrosepress.com)

READ MORE!

Next Tuesday, February 12, 2008, is a historic day. For the first time in a generation, a representative of the Seventh-day Adventist Church will be testifying before Congress in support of the rights of Sabbath keepers and other people of faith in the workplace. It is a historic opportunity-but to capitalize on it, we need two things in advance.

First and foremost, we earnestly seek your prayers. We know we are weak, we know the odds are firmly against us, and we know just how vulnerable we are. But we also know we serve an all-powerful God who listens when His people call upon Him.

Second, and very importantly, we need our church to raise its voice to Congress like we've never done before. Send your letters now at www.religiousliberty.info. In under two minutes you can send a letter; there's even a letter there already written for you to use. If you prefer, you can write your own letter on the site and have it sent.

Two minutes is a small price to pay for freedom! What if you've already sent a letter? Take a minute to send another letter to keep this vital bill fresh before Members of Congress. And please pass on this note to your family and church friends, so they can raise their voices, too. This is our chance to stand up and be counted in a very real way for religious liberty. Let's not let it pass us by.

Do your part to support our religious liberty in this country.  The cost is free, but the reward is great.

Thank you.