One Man's Faith is Another's Secular Organization

I have enjoyed your magazine for some time, finding your articles sometimes amusing (often unintentionally), sometimes stimulating, and sometimes moving. I have rarely found them inaccurate.

However, in your article "A Ride Down Sixteenth Street" (September/October 1998), you have included in your list of religious places of worship the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry Museum/Library and Temple. This in the context you presented it would lead the reader to assume that Freemasonry is a religion and its offices and meeting-places are places of worship. This implication is inaccurate.

Freemasonry is not a religion. It is a fraternal organization with social and benevolent purposes. It has no creed, no theology, no doctrines of salvation, and no forms of worship. Each member is expected to find these in his own church or other place of worship.

On the other hand, its ceremonies do reinforce the principles of morality to be found in all religions. Because Masons come from all kinds of religious backgrounds, religious tolerance is one of these Moral principles.

Free Masonry's position on religious liberty (together with willful misunderstanding) has caused it to be the target of persecution in many countries, the United States of America included. In this respect it has something in common with some of the other residents of Sixteenth street.

But a religion it is not.

MASON D. JARDINE, barrister and solicitor

Russell, Manitoba, Canada

——————————————————————————–

Thank you for your article, "A Ride Down Sixteenth Street," which illustrated how the ideals of religious freedom in America are a reality. Your description of Churches brought back several happy memories dating back to the 1930's when my Mother drove her three daughters every Sunday morning from the "country" on Jones Mill Road through Rock Creek Park and down Sixteenth Street to the Christian Science Sunday School.

Between 1946 and 1948 when Washington society and schools were strictly segregated, my Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School speech teacher, Mrs. Black, invited a group of her students to meet once a month on Saturdays with a group of black students and their teacher from Cardoza High School at All Soul's Unitarian Church.

Later, in the 1950's before moving to California, I, with my future husband, attended a series of Bible Lectures at Hamline Methodist Church. We also attended weddings at two other Churches on the same beautiful avenue.

Do the priests, rabbis, ministers and clerics of all the churches on Sixteenth Street ever get together for prayer and dialogue–prayer and fellowship that could bless their collective congregations, promote moral values and good will among their neighbors in Washington and around the world?

Again, many thanks for your outreaching message!

(Mrs.) ANNE M. HOFFLUND

San Diego, California

——————————————————————————–

I write to comment on your issue September/October 1998, and your policy in general.

I do not quarrel with your intentions and I wish to thank you for your willingness to have us on a complimentary mailing list.

Your article "A Ride Down Sixteenth Street" I think an unwarranted exercise in national self congratulation. Your statement (page 24) that "an intersection that houses Moonies, Masons, Unitarians, and Baptists could be made only in America" is simply false. There are many such intersections in Canada and the freedom which they enjoy owes nothing to the United States of America or its constitution. Although I believe that Christ like behavior requires those who believe in him to respect and defend religious liberty, even of those whose creed does not support such liberty, is such a right "bestowed by the Creator himself?" The only effective public rights I experience are those granted by the effective public

power.

I ask that we be removed from your mailing list as the heavy preoccupation with the Constitution of the United States makes little of the magazine relevant to us in Canada and we prefer not to presume further on your generosity.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Reverend Incumbent

Oshawa, Ontario

——————————————————————————–

I was very disappointed at the hypocrisy expressed in the article "A Ride Down Sixteenth Street," by Clifford Goldstein in the most recent issue. The author used the derogatory term "Moonies" to describe members of the Unification Church. Then he proceeded to describe the church doctrine as "radically aberrant theology." Finally, he implied that the Church has somehow "bought" respect.

The tone of this section of Goldstein's article is bigoted and disrespectful. I assumed that a Seventh-day Adventist publication would be more sensitive to the issue of new religious movements since so many Christians consider Adventists to be another cult with an heretical doctrine. Now it appears the persecuted having achieved acceptance to some extent, can become the persecutor.

Unificationists object to the term "Moonies" and should be respected in their desire not to be labeled pejoratively. If theology of the church is to be discussed, then have a qualified author offer commentary in a balanced, fair and truthful manner. Goldstein seems to be not only ignorant of Unification Theology, but downright hateful.

Liberty is supposed to be a beacon of religious freedom, and instead is promoting, in this instance, the kind of prejudice that leads to the loss of freedom, first for new religious groups, and eventually for all. An apology is in order.

MARK ANDERSON, State Representative

Phoenix, Arizona

[Dear Mark:

Considering that Moonie (most Moonies I knew gladly used the term) theology teaches that Christ blew it by dying on the cross, and the Rev. Moon has come to finish what Jesus failed to do–"radically aberrant theology" isn't too strong a term.–Ed.]

——————————————————————————–

Reconstructing the Free Exercise Clause

Nicholas Miller's recent article entitled "Reconstruction" was provocative, insightful, and disturbing. In short, it was a true clarion call to action. It was provocative because he set forth a persuasive case for appropriately and expeditiously responding to the Supreme Court's recent striking down of RFRA. It was disturbing because it reminds us how easy it is for us to lose our Constitutional freedoms.

While I understand the Supreme Court's Separation of Powers concerns as articulated in Boerne, it is vital that we secure the protections of the Free Exercise Clause by reintroducing RFRA with appropriate modifications. Mr. Miller's piece set forth one of the most comprehensive summaries of the present status of efforts to reinstate a RFRA of some sort.

I will be sure to share his article with my fellow legislative colleagues. As a state legislator, I believe that if we as a nation are unsuccessful in enacting a new RFRA at the federal level, we may have to individually pass state RFRAs to secure the freedoms which ought to have secured by our federal Constitution.

Thanks for an informative magazine. Mr. Miller's piece is truly representative of the thoughtful articles you have a reputation for publishing.

DAVID A. PENDLETON, Republican Whip, House of Representatives

Honolulu, Hawaii

sent through e-mail

——————————————————————————–

The Grand Inquisitor

Your Obiter on "The Grand Inquisitor" in Liberty's September/October 1998 issue proves the folly of asking, "What would Jesus do?" Because Jesus refused to get involved in politics, does it follow logically that we should not–today, in America? A nation founded by Christians and set up as a democracy requiring participation by all?

Would Jesus have joined George Washington's army to fight for America's freedom? Would Jesus have chosen sides in the civil war? The Vietnam War? The local school board election?

When Jesus appeared to Joshua as he prepared to enter the promised land, Joshua asked him, "Are you for us or for our enemies?" The Lord wisely replied, "Neither." (Joshua 5:13-14).

God does not "pick sides." He loves all people and nations, as a loving father loves all his various children, though they may fight amongst themselves. We, however, are called to participate in society and government. All that is required for evil men to succeed is for good people to stand by and do nothing.

Rather than ask how people would react to Jesus if He were to walk the earth today; rather than ask "what would Jesus do?", we need to ask ourselves "what would Jesus have me do today?"

I hardly think that Jesus would wish no Christians to speak up for righteous values in our schools and government.

ARDITH A. MUSE

Portland, Oregon

P.S. I enjoy your magazine very much.

——————————————————————————–

Suspect Class

I remained confused after reading "Suspect Class" in your July/August 1998 issue. I thought the purpose of your usually excellent magazine was to advocate a strong separation of church and state. Why then did Stephen Bainbridge's article lament the case of the Christian Legal Society at the University of Illinois for being forced to admit homosexuals?

No one at the university was dictating how the CLS members could practice religion privately, but at a public institution it makes sense not to allow clubs to discriminate. Should campuses allow white supremacists to express their first amendment rights in school sanctioned clubs without the input of minority voices? Sounds pretty lame.

And on a more Christian note, how dare Christians bar other sinners from sharing in the delights of the Lord! I am glad the university had the courage to lend the umbrage that such narrow mindedness deserves, otherwise we may have had Christian attorneys casting the first stone.

STEPHEN FORD

Chatsworth, California

——————————————————————————–

A Christian Nation: The Presbyterian Approach

This is a post-script to the parody on talk about a Christian nation by Presbyterian minister Larry V. R. Bunnell in the July/August issue of Liberty. In addition to contributing leadership in the formation of a national government, Presbyterians in 1788 were putting together their own national organization. The form of government which they adopted has a preface that is addressed not to the members but to the general public. It describes the relationship of church and state in terms that are at once firm and gentle, and generous to those who differ in belief and organization.

In our present Book of Order the opening lines have been revised to introduce the "Historic Principles" that are basic to the Presbyterian concept and system of church government. Here are the original opening lines, and the first two of the eight sections.

The Synod of New York and Philadelphia, judging it expedient to ascertain and fix the system of union, and the form of Government and Discipline of the Presbyterian Church in these United States, under their care; have thought proper to lay down, by way of introduction, a few of the general principles by which they have been hitherto governed and which are the ground work of the following plan. This, it is hoped, will, in some measure, prevent those rash misconstructions, and uncandid reflections, which usually proceed from an imperfect view of any subject; as well as make the several parts of the system plain, and the whole plan perspicuous and fully understood.

The Synod are unanimously of the opinion:

I. That "God alone is Lord of the conscience" and hath left "it free from the doctrine and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship." Therefore, they consider the rights of private judgement, in all matters that respect religion, as universal, and unalienable: They do not even wish to see any religious constitution aided by the civil power, further than may be necessary for protection and security, and, at the same time, equal and common to all others.

II. That, in perfect consistency with the above principle of common right, every Christian church, or union or association of particular churches, is entitled to declare the terms of admission into its communion and the qualification, of its ministers and members, as well as the whole system of its internal government which Christ hath appointed. That, in the exercise of this right, they may, notwithstanding, err, in making the terms of communion either too lax or too narrow: yet, even in this case, they do not infringe upon the liberty, or the rights of others, but only make an improper use of their own.

Reverend C. Fred Jenkins, Associate Stated Clerk, PC (U.S.A.)

Louisville, KY