| Editor: David E Marlett Th.D. | |
| March 26, 2001 | Vol I, #22 |
TBILISI, Georgia (AP) - Followers of a defrocked Georgian priest beat eight visiting American Baptists in this former Soviet republic on Saturday and stole camera equipment, Baptist leaders said.
The Americans had just arrived in Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, when former priest Vasily Mkalavishvili and his supporters arrived at the city's Baptist headquarters and attacked them, said Baptist priest Malkhaz Songulashvili.
Songulashvili accused police of ignoring the victims' pleas for help, and suggested they were sympathetic to the attackers.
Police officials and Mkalavishvili would not comment on the attack. The names and hometowns of the Americans were not immediately available.
Mkalavishvili was stripped of his post by Georgia's Orthodox Patriarchate in 1995, which accused him of anti-Christian policies. He has strongly opposed activities by religious minorities in this traditionally Orthodox nation.
He and his supporters broke into a printing house and burned copies of a book printed for a Jehovah's Witness community earlier this month, and burned tons of Baptist literature in a separate action. Jehovah's Witness members said police were present but did not interfere with the book burning.
Orthodox Church leaders in Georgia, Russia and other ex-Soviet states say they are struggling to retain followers because of the influx of foreign religious groups since the 1991 collapse of the atheist Soviet Union.
[ AP ]
A Southern Baptist layman will appeal a federal ruling upholding the constitutionality of Louisville, Ky., and Jefferson County ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
A March 21 ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson III has been hailed by homosexual activists as a focal point in the debate over whether individual religious beliefs "trump" laws protecting homosexual rights. City attorneys said they believe it is the first time that a federal court has upheld a gay rights law that was challenged on the basis of a First Amendment religious objection.
J. Barrett Hyman, a Louisville gynecologist and trustee for Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville who challenged both Louisville ordinances, is appealing the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He said he is prepared to go to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary, with each step to be a fight with such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Hyman contended that his religious beliefs are in such conflict with the ordinances that he could not comply with them -- including hiring homosexuals -- and that he thus risked prosecution because of his faith, which is protected by the First Amendment.
"It's a reflection of our society when a federal judge rules that homosexual behavior should not be discriminated against and gives these individuals special legal protection and disregards biblical principles of morality," said Hyman, who has the Ten Commandments and other Scripture hanging on his office walls. "I'm a Christian first and I've always been a Christian, pro-family, pro-life doctor, and to say that my faith does not influence my business is a lie."
Simpson, in his 34-page ruling, wrote that Hyman "has made no allegation that would suggest that his [medical] practice has as a purpose the exercise of his religion." He also described the ordinances as "rationally related to a legitimate government interest."
In Louisville and Jefferson County the ruling clears the way for local government to fine businesses or individuals from $10,000 to $50,000 for rejecting homosexual job applicants or denying them housing.
The ruling "is a huge victory for everybody who fought so hard for fairness and sends a message to the whole nation," Babs Elliott, senior city attorney who defended the Louisville ordinance, told the Louisville Courier-Journal. "Lots of municipalities" across the nation have passed or are considering similar measures and "this gives them some comfort level that they are constitutional," she said.
"This is a total victory for fairness," said Leslie Cooper, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Lesbian & Gay Rights Project, which represented the local group that lobbied for passage of the pro-homosexual ordinances. "[The March 21] decision says that everyone has to obey civil rights laws."
Hyman, who is represented by the conservative American Center for Law and Justice led by Jay Sekulow, said he brings his Christian faith to bear on every facet of his medical practice.
"I encourage moral behavior with my patients and employees," he said. "Hiring a homosexual would be in opposition to my whole Christian being and what I intend to promote in my practice."
Louisville aldermen passed an ordinance in January 1999 making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in employment -- including hiring, promotion and pay. Nine months later Jefferson Fiscal Court passed a broader ordinance, banning discrimination based on sexual orientation not only in employment, but also in public accommodations -- such as by service providers -- and in housing, including renting apartments and selling property.
Both laws were adopted after heated campaigns between pro-family and pro-homosexual groups that featured rallies, petition drives and massive efforts to call elected officials.
Hyman filed two suits challenging the ordinances, with the cases subsequently consolidated.
Like similar ordinances nationwide, the ones in Louisville and Jefferson County include exemptions for religious organizations, such as churches and seminaries that do not receive government funding. The March 21 decision has no effect on such exemptions.
Hyman said he does not hate homosexuals and only wants to help them leave their destructive lifestyle.
"If you truly love a person, you tell them the truth about sin and their need for Jesus and how Jesus can change their heart," he said. "Homosexuals are not born homosexuals. They are making an egregious, rebellious choice against God. Not only does homosexuality bring physical and spiritual disease and death, but also it is contagious to others exposed to it. Many of these people are lost and doomed. We must keep fighting against homosexuality so they are not left behind."
[ Baptist Press ]
Editorial Comment: It is important to note that the only exemptions in this law were "religious organizations, such as churches and seminaries that do not receive government funding." If you play the game with GW's Faith Based Initiatives, you will have to hire any homosexual that walks in the door.
The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, said today it will work to defend the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) - a new federal law that requires public libraries to use computer software to block pornography - from a legal challenge by the ACLU.
"This is an issue about protecting our children," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, who testified before a U.S. Senate Committee regarding the constitutionality of mandating computer filtering devices for public libraries. "It is our view that the Children's Internet Protection Act is constitutional and we will work diligently to defend the law. Libraries and public schools have a compelling interest to protect the physical and psychological well being of children. The use of Internet filtering software as required by the Children's Internet Protection Act is a reasonable and constitutional way to protect children from online pornography."
The ACLJ will file briefs responding to lawsuits challenging CIPA filed today by the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Association. Sekulow said the ACLJ will represent members of Congress and will likely include those who sponsored the legislation.
At the same time, the ACLJ is working with a pro-child coalition of organizations and members of Congress in defending CIPA.
The ACLJ submitted written testimony to the Federal Communications Commission last month concerning the constitutionality of the law. And, ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow appeared before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in 1999 and testified that the use of computer filtering devices to protect children from sexually explicit material and pornography is constitutional. Both the testimony submitted to the FCC and the Senate Committee is available at the ACLJ web site at www.aclj.org.
"The new legislation is constitutional because it does not require that all computer terminals in libraries or public schools be outfitted with porn-filtering software," said Sekulow. "Those computers earmarked for use by minors must include the porn filters, but other computers used by adults do not. The Children's Internet Protection Act does not run afoul of the First Amendment and is an effective way to protect minors while permitting adults to use a filter-free Internet."
The Children's Internet Protection Act, which was signed into law late last year and scheduled to take effect next month, mandates that any school or library that refuses to install Internet filtering software on its computers would lose federal funds for technology upgrades.
The American Center for Law and Justice is an international public interest law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional issues and specializes in pro-family, pro-life, and pro-liberty cases. The ACLJ web site address is www.aclj.org.
by Obed Minchakpu
MAIDUGURI, Nigeria (Compass) -- Dozens of Nigerian Christian families have fled to Nigeria's neighbor, Cameroon, because of mounting pressure resulting from the implementation of the Islamic legal system, or "sharia," by the Borno state government.
The Christians are from the Wuka ethnic group, who are largely found in the villages of Wula, Warabe, Dure, Kughum, and Wala, in the Gwoza area of Borno state. In Dure village alone, more than three dozen Christian families are said to have fled to the northern part of Cameroon.
"Our leaders have gone to Cameroon and obtained permission for us to settle in their villages, to enable us to escape persecution that we are facing from the Muslims here," Mallam Jahode Kura, a Christian community leader in the area, told Compass.
He added, "Already 40 Christian families left the village today to start work on the huts we shall build to accommodate us. We want to live where we can be free as long as we are law abiding people."
Borno state adopted the Islamic legal system in August 2000. When signing the sharia bill into law, State Governor Alhaji Mala Kachalla said that the application of sharia would be exclusively directed to Muslims.
But the migration of Nigerians in the Gwoza area of the state is a clear indication of the impact of sharia on Christians in northern Nigeria.
"Considering the fact that democracy is a government of the people, for the people and by the people, the occasion is, therefore, the government's response to the yearnings of the majority of our people who harbor legitimate aspiration to live a life of compliance with the sharia within the Federal Republic of Nigeria," Governor Kachalla, a Muslim, said last August.
However, Christian leaders said sharia is unacceptable to the state's Christians. They have demanded that all areas where Christians live should be declared "sharia free zones."
The Rev. Filibus Gwama, Borno state chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria, believes the adoption of sharia is a strategy to checkmate Christianity in Nigeria.
Anglican Bishop Emmanuel Kana Mani of Maiduguri said, "There is no compulsion in religion and that is why it is wrong for some people to try to force others to see things from their own religious perspective. If God wants all of us to be Muslims, no mortal can be otherwise, and if He wants us to be Christians, it will have come to pass. I see it therefore as a fallacy to say one will legislate righteousness. It is a thing of the divine."
Chairman of the Baptist Conference, the Rev. Stephen Ayankeye, said in spite of the government's repeated assurances that sharia is only for the Muslims, Christians in the state have been negatively affected.
"It is said that sharia is for Muslims only, but we have received reports of pulling down of churches and molestation of Christians across the state. It means that the claim that sharia will not affect Christians is not true. It has started affecting us. There is a feeling of lacking of belonging among Christians in the state," Rev. Ayankeye said.
[ Copyright © 2001 Compass Direct News Service ]
Although the constitutions of many Islamic countries provide for freedom in exercising religious beliefs, non-Moslems almost always have great difficulties in practicing their faith. Moslems who have become Christians may even lose their lives. Still, Islamic countries claim to be tolerant and to guarantee freedom of religion.
In spite of the fact that freedom of religion is part of the law in most Islamic countries, their constitutions declare Islam to be the state religion. A few other faiths, such as Judaism and Christianity, are allowed a certain right to exist, so that their members are not required to convert to Islam, even if they live in an predominantly Islamic area, but they are never equal to Moslems before the law. They remain 'second-class citizens' with limited legal rights and are subject to the Islamic State, which defines the limits of their religious freedoms very strictly (including the building or re-pairing of churches, for example).
In most cases the Jewish or Christian faith must be exercised quietly, for "a Moslem citizen can not be expected to endure and continually resist the missionary activity of other religions". Non-Moslem faiths, which are only tolerated and supervised, may exist only under the conditions imposed by the law, otherwise not at all.
Non-Moslems are forbidden to insult or disparage Islam, the Koran or the prophet Muhammad, which automatically occurs in Christian evangelization, according to Moslem opinion. Moroccan law, for example, requires a prison sentence of six months to three years, as well as a fine of 200 to 500 dirham, for proselytizing a Moslem to another religion. Repudiation of Islam is still considered to be a crime worthy of death, whereas the Moslem has the right to proselytize others.
Conclusion: Islamic human rights declarations of all kinds continually insist on the authority of the Islamic faith, and can therefore only guarantee civil rights which respect Islam and its principles. This automatically restricts the rights of non-Moslems, so that under Islamic law, only the Moslem can enjoy all rights, for only he is considered to be a loyal citizen.
Non-Moslems have limited rights, but are allowed to exist. The Moslem who repudiates his faith loses all his rights, for he is considered a traitor to his country and to the state and may be subject to the death sentence either under the legal system or by his neighbors. This is emphasized in the "Draft for an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights", which was composed by the Islamic Conference in Jidda in l979 .
This statement forbids the Moslem to ever change his faith. Not to condemn the renegade to death would be an offence against the Shari'a, and can thus not be guaranteed, not even within the framework of a human rights declaration.
To be removed from this mailing list you can unsubscribe
through the homepage
or send your request to
Unsub-tccn@wilderness-cry.net
If this newsletter was forwarded to you and you would like a free subscription simply send an e-mail to subscribe-tccn@wilderness-cry.net