100 years ago--the Scopes trial

On July 21, 1925, high school teacher John T. Scopes was found guilty by Judge John T. Raulston of violating the Butler Act, a statute forbidding the teaching of human evolution in public school in Tennessee. The act had been signed into law by Tennessee Governor Austin Peay on March 21, 1925. Several notable people in the small town of Dayton, Tennessee thought it would be a great publicity stunt for the law to be challenged, with the trial to be held in Dayton. Mr. Scopes, a substitute teacher who wasn't sure if he had actually taught evolution, agreed to serve as the accused in challenging the law. The trial, which became popularly known as the "Scopes Monkey Trial," began in Dayton on July 10, 1925. District Attorney Tom Stewart led the prosecution, assisted by three-time Democratic Party U.S. presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who hadn't tried a case in 36 years. The defense, financed by the American Civil Liberties Union, was led by Clarence Darrow, one of America's most famous lawyers and a member of the ACLU.

The trial attracted national and international publicity, covered by journalists such as noted American muckraker H.L. Mencken. The climax occurred on the trial's seventh day when Mr. Darrow, an agnostic, called Mr. Bryan to the stand to quiz him on the Bible. The exchange between the two men went on for two hours, but Judge Raulston eventually ruled the testimony irrelevant and that it should be expunged from the record. Mr. Bryan was planning to put Mr. Darrow on the stand and question him on his beliefs, but Judge Raulston's ruling prevented that, and hastened the end of the trial. Prevented from entering further evidence, Mr. Darrow rested his case without a summation, and requested a verdict from the jury, who took just nine minutes to find the defendant guilty.

Mr. Scopes was fined $100, and filed an appeal. On January 15, 1927, the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned the guilty verdict and fine against Mr. Scopes, ruling that Judge Raulston had usurped the role of the jury. The Butler Act, however, was upheld, and wasn't repealed until 1967. The Scopes trial was regarded as a major event in the battle between fundamentalism and modern science, with "science" winning the public relations battle despite losing the case.

I don't have the time for a lengthy analysis of the Scopes trial, but here are a few resources that the reader may find informative:

Scopes at 100: Cross-examining the “Monkey Trial” by Subby Szterszky of Focus on the Family Canada (this article contains numerous links to other useful articles)

100 Years Later: How The Scopes Trial Resulted In Generations Of Judicially Imposed Public Secularism by Judge Darrell White of Answers in Genesis (July 14, 1925)

Tired of put-downs, Tennessee town corrects the record with play about the Scopes trial it hosted by Kristin M. Hall of Associated Press (July 11, 2025)



They Did This 100 Years Ago, and We’re Still Living with the Consequences--Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis (June 28, 2025)

Jewish groups protest, praise U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of high school football coach's right to lead post-game prayers

This has been a bad month in the United States for those who promote the idea of "Judeo-Christian" values, as recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have provoked responses that make it obvious that Judeo values are not necessarily Christian values. In 1962, Jewish organizations were opposed to mandated prayer as part of the public school day (see post below), resulting in the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In 2022, Jewish organizations are opposing voluntary prayer on the school grounds after football games, following another Supreme Court decision, 60 years and 2 days after the earlier ruling. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 27, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle-area football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the field following his team’s victories, in a decision that could have ramifications for Jews in public schools and the military.

A number of Jewish groups say the 6-3 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, issued Monday, could roll back church-state separations that have protected schoolchildren from religious coercion for decades.

“This is a significant change in how we approach prayer in public schools, and one that will have a negative impact in particular on students of marginalized faiths and non-religious students,” said Rachel Robbins, the chairwoman of the Anti-Defamation League’s Civil Rights Committee. The ADL, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the school district, said it was “deeply disturbed” by the decision.

The expressions of concern came despite reassurances by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the ruling was in line with a famous 1992 Supreme Court decision in favor of a Rhode Island Jewish family who objected to clergy leading prayer at their children’s public school.

Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Gorsuch quoted from that decision, Lee v. Weisman, in which the court held “that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State.” The ruling Monday in favor of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Bremerton, Washington, school district, Gorsuch wrote, similarly protects First Amendment religious freedoms.

Jewish groups were not buying it.

“The Court’s see-no-evil approach to the coach’s prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court’s blessing,” said Marc Stern, the chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee, which had joined a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the school district.

“That is no advance for religious liberty,” Stern added.

The Bremerton case centered on the activities of Kennedy, who started out by praying alone at the 50-yard line and did not call on others to join him. But soon after, students and others started joining Kennedy in prayer, alarming the school district. It proposed alternatives, including allowing him to pray after the game, but he declined and continued to pray to increased media attention. The school district decided not to renew his contract.

The court concluded, essentially, that by preventing a Christian high school coach from praying, the school district had violated his civil rights no less than had it forced other children to pray.

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” Gorsuch said, emphasizing that Kennedy had not explicitly urged students to join him in prayer.

“It seems clear to us that Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated that his speech was private speech, not government speech,” Gorsuch wrote. “This case looks very different from those in which this Court has found prayer involving public school students to be problematically coercive,” he said, specifically citing Lee v. Weisman.

Lee v. Weisman involved a Baptist clergyman who said at a 1986 middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, “Please rise and praise Jesus for the accomplishments of these children today.”

Merith Weisman’s parents, Vivian, the assistant executive director at the local Jewish Community Center, and Daniel, a social work professor, were unnerved, and the prayer triggered a series of events and lawsuits that culminated in the landmark 1992 case.

That decision was 5-4. Antonin Scalia, the late conservative justice whom Gorsuch replaced, said for years it was wrongly decided, and the religious right agreed. President Donald Trump named three conservative justices, and with the new balance of power, the Supreme Court has in recent weeks ticked off a wish list for religious conservatives, from school choice to overturning abortion rights.

The AJC’s Stern said Gorsuch was cherry-picking quotes from the earlier decision to make his own opinion sound less far-reaching than it was.

“There’s a tendency to sanitize a practice, rip it out of its historical roots and look at it in splendid isolation, and so it [appears] not so terrible,” Stern said in an interview.

Kennedy, as an assistant coach, may not have the same power as the principal in the Rhode Island case who invited clergy, Stern said, but the coach still had coercive power over students, and it was disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

“Kids will do anything to get on a coach’s good side and get playing time,” Stern said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal minority in the dissent, made a similar point, illustrating it with a photo of students surrounding Kennedy in prayer.

“Several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy’s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team,” Sotomayor wrote. “No [Bremerton High School] students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy’s suspension.”

The National Council of Jewish Women, also a signatory to a friend-of-the-court brief, said the latest decision was one in a series that eroded church-state separations, citing among others the recent decision directing the state of Maine to pay for religious schooling for students for whom reaching public schools is arduous.

“No student should have to choose between their religious freedom and being part of school activities,” Jody Rabhan, the group’s chief policy officer, said in a statement. “But today’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton could force children enrolled in public schools to do just that.”

Mikey Weinstein, the Jewish veteran who leads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for religion-state separations in the military, said the ruling will undercut his years-long efforts to remove Christian prayers from military academy athletic events.

The decision “will serve to utterly and expeditiously destroy the precious wall separating church and state in our country and especially the U.S. military,” he said.

For once, I hope Mikey "Whine"stein is correct, in his assertion that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District will undercut his anti-Christian efforts. Go here to see the text of the Court's ruling.

June 28, 2022 update: In contrast to liberal Jewish organizations, an Orthodox Jewish group is praising the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 28, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — Agudath Israel of America praised the reversal of a judicial standard that came about as a result of a Supreme Court ruling backing a public high school football coach who prayed on the fifty-yard line.

Abba Cohen, the Washington director for the haredi Orthodox umbrella body, said the group was pleased that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the decision for the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, did away with a decades-old standard for assessing whether a government authority violated church-state standards.

Cohen clarified later that this did not mean his organization was praising the entire ruling. “Agudath Israel has long expressed concern about and opposition to denominational public prayer and the proselytization in schools,” he said.

The “Lemon test,” stemming from the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, assesses whether a government action advances or inhibits religion. Orthodox groups have long said the test was overly restrictive.

“Rather than offering protection, ‘Lemon’ too often resulted in Establishment Clause hostility toward religion, which itself is constitutionally prohibited,” Cohen said. “The First Amendment is stronger with its demise.”

Gorsuch in his decision said the Lemon test should be superseded by more recent traditions that refer to “historical practices and understandings.”

“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Gorsuch wrote.

Monday’s ruling backed Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Seattle area who was let go from his job because he would not stop on-field prayers. The coach asserted, and the Court majority agreed, that his prayers were “private,” even though his players would join in. Jewish civil rights groups said the ruling put at risk a 1992 ruling banning clergy from praying in schools. That ruling, which the groups said protected children from proselytizers, was spurred by Jewish parents in Rhode Island.

The Orthodox Union, the umbrella body for Modern Orthodox groups and synagogues, declined to comment on Gorsuch’s decision, named Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), said he had mixed feelings about the ruling. Chabad has advocated for years for moments of silence in public schools, seeing them as a means for reflection and promoting more considered behavior.

But Shemtov said the coach’s Christian prayer was not quite the same. “A parochial prayer can present some real problems while a moment of silence is all but unassailable,” Shemtov said in an interview. A moment of silence “gives each individual the right to worship in the privacy of their own mind even in the presence of others.”

60 years ago--The U.S. Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, prohibits mandated prayer in public schools

When Americans think of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had the effect of removing God from public schools, the name that comes to mind is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of American Atheists, who filed suit on behalf of her son Bill Murray, who was in a public school system that mandated Bible-reading. Her case, Murray v. Curlett, was folded into Abington School District v. Schempp, in which Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania law that required at least 10 verses of the Bible to be read without comment at the beginning of each public school day. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-1 on June 17, 1963 in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The Court, in Abington School District v. Schempp, upheld its ruling from a year earlier in a related case. On June 25, 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, ruled by a 6-1 margin that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if it is not required and not tied to a particular religion. As reported by Justia (bold in original):

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Primary Holding

The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if it is not required and not tied to a particular religion.

Facts

The state board of regents in New York wrote a voluntary prayer to Almighty God that was intended to open each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, including families and institutions dedicated to the Jewish faith. They claimed that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but the New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments. While nearly half of the state governors in the U.S. contributed to an amicus brief asking the Court to uphold this finding that the prayer was constitutional, several national Jewish organizations submitting opposing briefs seeking its invalidation.

Opinions

Majority

Hugo Lafayette Black (Author)
Earl Warren
William Orville Douglas
Tom C. Clark
John Marshall Harlan II
William Joseph Brennan, Jr.

Relying on historical analysis, Black emphasized the significance of separating church from state and identified a school prayer as a religious activity, no matter its specific wording. As a result, the state of New York had used its power to promote a certain set of religious beliefs by encouraging children to comply with its own. Black was not persuaded that the general wording of the prayer and the fact that the prayer was voluntary were enough to insulate it from the First Amendment. He observed that not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording.

Concurrence

William Orville Douglas (Author)

Dissent

Potter Stewart (Author)

Recused

Byron Raymond White (Author)
Felix Frankfurter

Case Commentary

While students theoretically could have opted out of participating in the prayer, the majority and proponents of its decision recognized that children are unlikely to choose not to engage in a teacher-led activity. The outcome might be different if the case had involved an educational institution with adult students.

The Court's general antipathy toward prayer in schools would be extended by later decisions that struck down clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies, student-led prayers at football games, and time set aside during the school day for prayer or meditation.

U.S. Supreme Court
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Engel v. Vitale

No. 468

Argued April 3, 1962

Decided June 25, 1962

370 U.S. 421

Syllabus

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 370 U.S. 422-436.

10 N.Y.2d 174, 176 N.E.2d 579, reversed.

Page 370 U.S. 422

In 1951 and again in 1955, the Board of Regents of New York adopted a resolution calling for reading the following nondemoninational prayer in classrooms to begin the school day:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

The plaintiffs, residents of North Hempstead, New York, were parents Steven Engel, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons, Dan Lichtenstein and Larry Ross. Mr. Engel, who was Jewish, was named the lead plaintiff because his name came first in alphabetical order. The American Civil Liberties Union (surprise!) aided the plaintiffs, who lost in the Supreme Court of New York (1959); Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division (1960); and Court of Appeals of New York (1961). However, the highest court in the nation reversed the New York rulings. Roman Catholic writer Paul A. Fisher, in his book Behind the Lodge Door (1994, pp. 161-162), argued that the Supreme Court's anti-religious rulings during the post-World War II era came at a time when the Court was dominated by Freemasons. According to Mr. Fisher:

The truth is, prayer and Bible reading were integral to the "Protestant" public school system in the United States until the Supreme Court's Engel decision in 1962 and its Schempp ruling in 1963-a period when Masons dominated the Court by a six-to-three ratio.

The U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp were heavily criticized by Christians and other American at the time, and have been accused of playing a major role in changing the country for the worse, and no longer being "a nation under God." The critics turned out to be right.

Those who like to use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" may be surprised to learn that not only did the plaintiffs have a disproportionate number of Jewish-sounding names, but in appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, they were joined by the American Jewish Committee, the Synagogue Council of America, and the American Ethical Union, each of whom submitted briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse the New York rulings (which is an example of why this blogger no longer uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian"--Judeo values are not Christian values). While Madalyn Murray O'Hair is still remembered for her role in removing mandated Bible-reading from public schools, the role of Jews in the case that removed mandated prayer from public schools has been airbrushed from history. To quote Sherlock Holmes out of context, "Most singular! Most remarkable!!"

Hippos are now legally recognized as persons in the United States, but unborn humans aren't

More evidence that you can't be a satirist anymore, as reported by Amy Cheng of The Washington Post, October 26, 2021 (links in original):

Some 100 hippos, descended from a herd smuggled into Colombia by the notorious drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, are now recognized by a U.S. court as “interested persons” following a decision this month that is believed to be the first of its kind in the United States.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund, which sought the interested persons designation for the “cocaine hippos,” called the ruling by a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio a “critical milestone” in its larger effort to have the American legal system recognize “enforceable rights” for animals.

Legal analysts say the U.S. court order has no direct effect in Colombia. It remains to be seen what influence the ruling might have on a lawsuit there seeking to safeguard the hippos’ well-being.

Escobar smuggled several hippos onto his estate in the 1980s. Their wild descendants now roam the wetlands north of Bogotá, where they are the largest invasive species on the planet. Colombia had considered culling them, but Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado, an animal rights lawyer, filed the lawsuit to prevent their being killed.

Colombian authorities have since said they will instead sterilize the herd with a chemical contraceptive called GonaCon, which was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The United States has donated dozens of doses of the chemical, used to sterilize animals such as horses and deer, to Colombia.

Now Gómez is seeking to have the hippos treated with a contraceptive that has already been used on the species. GonaCon has not been tested for hippo sterilization.

Ariel Flint, a staff attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, said the federal court’s order is “narrow,” in that its purpose is to allow two U.S. wildlife experts to be deposed in support of the legal proceedings in Colombia. But their testimony is “critical in ensuring that the hippos are sterilized in a humane way, and in proving that sterilization is an effective option for any hippos that may yet be euthanized,” he wrote in an email to The Washington Post.

Escobar brought four hippos to his Colombia estate, Hacienda Nápoles, to add to his private collection of exotic animals, which also included ostriches, giraffes and elephants. After his death in 1993, the hippos were left to their own devices. They lived along the Magdalena River and ballooned to the current population of as many as 120.

The biggest community of hippos outside their native Africa, the semiaquatic mammals prospered in the absence of natural predators in South America. Favorable weather in the region may have induced them to reproduce at a younger age, researchers say.

Gómez, the Colombian lawyer, has praised his country’s jurisprudential attitude toward animals. Colombian courts characterize them as “sentient beings” entitled to some rights, the legal academic Macarena Montes Franceschini wrote in the Journal of Animal Ethics.

In 2018, a Colombian court granted legal personhood status to part of the Amazon rainforest in a landmark decision that urged the government to put an end to the region’s deforestation crisis.

Of course, it's horribly bigoted to refer to the hippos as an "invasive species," rather than as "undocumented immigrants" bringing "diversity" to the swamps of Colombia.

60 years ago: U.S. Supreme Court sides with atheist in Maryland case

On June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Torcaso v. Watkins, ruled 9-0 that states were prohibited from requiring a religious test to hold public office. The case involved Roy Torcaso, who had been appointed a notary public by Maryland Governor John Millard Tawes. The Constitution of Maryland required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State." Mr. Torcaso was a professing atheist, refused to make such a declaration, and was denied the position.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Maryland requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and had the effect of imposing a religious test for holding office. I doubt that those who wrote those amendments had that in mind when the amendments were approved. This decision has been forgotten in the light of the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings Engel v. Vitale (1962), which prohibited an official school prayer, and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), but it should be included with them as part of a series of rulings, starting with Everson v. Board of Education (1947), that increasingly ordered God out of public life.

I'm not going to talk about how five of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices in 1961--Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Associate Justices Hugo Black, Tom Clark, William O. Douglas, and Tom Clark--were known to be Freemasons. Roman Catholic journalist Paul A. Fisher, in his book Behind the Lodge Door (1988, 1989), noted that the Supreme Court's anti-religious decisions came during a three-decade period from the 1940s to the 1970s when the Court was dominated by Freemasons.

U.S. federal court of appeals rules against New York restrictions on houses of worship

It's not guaranteed, but if you dare to stand up for your rights, there's a chance you might win; of course, you won't win if you cravenly bow the knee to Caesar, as many churches have done. As reported by Shira Hanau of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 28, 2020 (link in original):

A federal court of appeals ruled that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s capacity limits on houses of worship in areas with rising COVID-19 cases constituted a violation of religious liberty.

The ruling on Monday comes after a Supreme Court injunction last month blocking Cuomo from enforcing the rules until the lower court could reevaluate an earlier ruling that upheld state guidelines limiting synagogue attendance to 10 or 25 people.

The case, brought by the Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and Agudath Israel of America, an advocacy organization representing haredi Orthodox Jews, was one of the first religious liberty cases to be decided by the court’s new conservative majority. The appeals court ruling was celebrated by Agudath Israel as confirmation that it had achieved a victory for religious liberty.

“The courts have clearly recognized that the restrictions imposed by New York State violate the constitutional rights of those seeking to attend religious worship services,” Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, said in a statement Monday.

The court of appeals did not rule on the constitutionality of percentage capacity limits, which would have impacted smaller houses of worship. Houses of worship in zones with the highest rates of COVID-19, so-called red zones, were subjected to capacity limits of ten people or 25% of building capacity, whichever is fewer. In orange zones, the limit was 25 people or 33% of capacity, whichever is fewer.

The court ordered the district court to reevaluate its ruling on the percentage capacity limits imposed by Cuomo to determine if they discriminated against houses of worship.

Physician-assisted suicide in Canada doubled from 2017-2019

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: Deuteronomy 30:19

For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord.
But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:35-36

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. Proverbs 14:12 (also Proverbs 16:25)

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,...
...And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:22,28

I find it difficult to understand why today's residents of what were the Allied nations in World War II still regard the Nazis as villains when those nations are increasingly adopting the Nazis' policies. To regurgitate what I said in a previous post: It comes as no surprise to this blogger to see the rabidly antichrist Trudeaupian Canadian government of the Manchurian Pothead, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fulfilling my prediction that the slippery slope argument will prove correct in Trudeaupia Canada as it did in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s, with the legalization of euthanasia eventually leading to widespread killing. Doctor-assisted death is rapidly morphing into doctor-initiated death.

As reported by Christine Rousselle of Catholic News Agency, July 30, 2020 (link in original):

Washington, D.C. Newsroom - The number of Canadians killed by physician-assisted suicide nearly doubled between 2017 and 2019, according to a report released by the Canadian government. More than a third of those who opted for “medical assistance in dying” cited concerns of being a burden to family or carers.

The “First Annual Report on Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada 2019” was published in July. It follows a series of interim reports that were published over the last year.

In 2019, a total of 5,631 Canadians ended their lives through the country’s “Medical Assistance in Dying,” or “MAID” protocols. This amounts for 2% of the total deaths in Canada, an increase from 2018’s percentage. In 2018, the number of MAID deaths accounted for 1.12% of the total number of deaths in Canada.

The report found that cancer was the most common condition among those who ended their lives with MAID, followed by respiratory conditions and neurological ailments. Slightly over two thirds of those who used MAID had cancer as an underlying condition.

Along with having a “reasonably foreseeable” natural death, a person who wished to receive MAID also had to show that their condition was causing them “enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and cannot be relieved in a manner that they find acceptable.”

In just over a third of 2019’s MAID deaths, a “perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers” was one of the reasons cited, and in 13.7% of cases, “isolation or loneliness” was a factor.

“When asked to describe the nature of the suffering prompting their request, patients most often reported ‘a loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities’ followed by ‘loss of ability to perform activities of daily living’ reported in 82.1% and 78.1% of cases, respectively,” says the report.

“Inadequate control of pain” was cited in 53.9% of cases, followed by “loss of dignity” in 53.3% of cases.

In U.S. states with legal physician-assisted suicide, less than one half of one percent of deaths are due to euthanasia, the lowest rate in the world. If Canada’s numbers were extrapolated to the United States, approximately 50,000 people each year would end their lives with MAID. This would put euthanasia in the top 10 causes of death for the United States, just above “intentional self-harm (suicide)” and just below kidney disease.

Countries that permit physicians to administer euthanasia and do not mandate self-administration have higher percentages of deaths from euthanasia. Similar to countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, Canadian law permits doctors to administer the lethal dose of medication to the patients. In the United States, the drugs must be self-administered.

While Canadians have the option to self-administer the drugs, the number of people who chose to do so last year was “fewer than seven.”

In 2019, the average age of a person who received MAID in Canada was 75.2 years, but 103 people between the ages of 18 and 45 received MAID.

Last year, 92.2% of requests for MAID were approved, out of a total of 7,336 applications.

Only 3.6% of people who were deemed eligible for MAID withdrew their request.

Of those who were deemed ineligible for MAID in 2019, about a quarter were denied because death was “reasonably foreseeable,” and an additional quarter were denied due to not being “in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability.” Those requirements are likely to change for future years.

In September 2019, the Superior Court of Quebec found that the requirement that a person who receives MAID have a “reasonably foreseeable natural death” was unconstitutional. The Canadian government later announced that they do not intend on appealing this decision, and a piece of legislation titled Bill C-7 was introduced in February 2020 to further expand MAID criteria.

In addition to removing the requirement of a reasonably foreseeable death, Bill C-7 would also allow for advanced directives.

Cardinal Thomas Collins, the Archbishop of Toronto, released a statement in February criticizing Bill C-7 for expanding the criteria for MAID without expanding the availability of palliative care.

“Where is the political will to push forward on palliative care for all Canadians? Only 30% of Canadians have access to quality palliative care even though we know that pain and loneliness are among the biggest fears of those who are suffering. Palliative care can address these issues,” said Collins.

“If all Canadians had access to quality palliative care, fewer would seek lethal injection. But instead of developing an overall culture of care, we are rushing towards death on demand,” adding that doctors will be forced to comply with requests for euthanasia as Canada does not have conscience rights protections for medical professionals.

“We should take time to be truly present to those who may feel that they are on the margins in our community,” said Collins.

“Those who feel that their life no longer has value must be assured by all of us that this is absolutely not the case — there is dignity within each human life, not just when we are young, healthy and able, but even more so, when we are fragile and vulnerable.”

See also my previous posts:

Supreme Court of Canada strikes down ban on assisted suicide (February 6, 2015)

Canada's largest children's hospital drafts policy that could allow for the euthanasia of children (October 11, 2018)

Canada's antichrist Liberal government plans to study reports on expanding euthanasia (December 23, 2018)

70 years ago: Israeli Knesset passes Law of Return

That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.
If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers. Deuteronomy 30:3-5

On July 5, 1950, the Israeli Knesset passed the Law of Return:

The Law of Return 5710 (1950)*

1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh**.

2. (a) Aliyah shall be by oleh's visa.

(b) An oleh's visa shall be granted to every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the applicant

(1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or

(2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State.

3. (a) A Jew who has come to Israel and subsequent to his arrival has expressed his desire to settle in Israel may, while still in Israel, receive an oleh's certificate.

(b) The restrictions specified in section 2(b) shall apply also to the grant of an oleh's certificate, but a person shall not be regarded as endangering public health on account of an illness contracted after his arrival in Israel.

4. Every Jew who has immigrated into this country before the coming into force of this Law, and every Jew who was born in this country, whether before or after the coming into force of this Law, shall be deemed to be a person who has come to this country as an oleh under this Law.

5. The Minister of Immigration is charged with the implementation of this Law and may make regulations as to any matter relating to such implementation and also as to the grant of oleh's visas and oleh's certificates to minors up to the age of 18 years.

* Passed by the Knesset on the 20th Tammuz, 5710 (5th July, 1950) and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 51 of the 21st Tammuz, 5710 (5th July. 1950), p. 159; the Bill and an Explanatory Note were published in Hatza'ot Chok No. 48 of the 12th Tammuz, 5710 (27th June, 1950), p. 189.

** Translator's Note: Aliyah means immigration of Jews, and oleh (plural: olim) means a Jew immigrating, into Israel.

The law has been amended twice (1954 and 1970), and has served as a step in the fulfillment of the prophecy in Deuteronomy 30.

Costa Rica becomes the first Central American country to legalize same-sex "marriage"

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1:24-32

As reported by Oscar Lopez of Reuters, May 26, 2020:

MEXICO CITY (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - Costa Rica gave the go-ahead to same-sex marriages on Tuesday, making it the first country in Central America to do so after a landmark court ruling came into effect at midnight.

The nation’s constitutional court ruled in August 2018 that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gave parliament 18 months to legislate or the provision would be automatically nullified.

Earlier this month, more than 20 lawmakers tried to delay the marriage ruling by 18 months but the measure failed and the ban was lifted at midnight - although couples will have to opt for online weddings due to the coronavirus restrictions.

“Costa Rica is celebrating today: marriage equality has become a reality in the country - the first one in Central America!” said the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) in a tweet.

“We rejoice with you: congratulations to all those who worked so hard to make it happen!”

Costa Rica becomes the sixth country in Latin America to allow gay marriage - after Ecuador legalised it last year - and the 28th U.N. member state to recognize same-sex marriage.

Despite considerable opposition from religious groups, gay marriage has become increasingly accepted in Latin America, with gay couples now allowed to marry in Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Colombia, Uruguay and parts of Mexico.

Enrique Sanchez, Costa Rica’s first openly gay congressman with the center-left Citizens’ Action Party, said this represented the culmination of a fight over many years by many people, some through activism and others anonymously.

“With their experience, their struggles ... they have helped build a society where there are no second-class families or second-rate people,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

In a region marked by religious conservatism and widespread violence towards LGBT+ people, Costa Rica’s gay marriage ruling was welcomed by many local rights activists.

“This offers us peace of mind,” said Margarita Salas, an LGBT+ rights campaigner in Costa Rica and president of the VAMOS political party. “This measure gives us the ability to protect and provide security to our family.”

Legalizing gay marriage was a major campaign promise by President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, who took office in May 2018.

“This change will cause a significant social and cultural transformation of the country,” Alvarado Quesada said in a video posted on Twitter late on Monday.

“(Gay and lesbian people) will have the rights and the same rights as any other person, couple or family in this country.”

Covid-19 provides opportunities for police state persecution of Christians

And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide...
...But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done. Acts 4:1-3, 15-21

Freedom is everybody's business--your business, my business, the church's business--and the man who will not use his freedom to defend his freedom does not deserve his freedom. Carl McIntire

Any similarity between the subject of this post and the one immediately below, is of course, purely coincidental. ;) The Covid-19 crisis seems to be gradually winding down, but the harassment and persecution of Christians by politicians and police in the United States and Canada is continuing, and is unprecedented. Other blogs on my blog roll have reported on cases of Covid-19 persecution in the U.S.A., and the reader is invited to search those blogs for information. While churches in some areas are holding drive-in services with no problems, other parts of the country are less tolerant. I'll mention just a few examples from the United States of churches being prohibited from holding services that couldn't possibly be endangering health. First, this example from Tulsa, as reported by Michael Overall of the Tulsa World, March 29, 2020:

The mayor’s shelter-in-place orders scuttled plans for a Sunday morning drive-in church service at Tulsa’s iconic Admiral Twin theater.

The Tulsa Police Department informed the nondenominational Common Ground church Saturday afternoon that the service couldn’t happen, elder Brian Leonard said.

“We’re disappointed,” he said. “But we want to comply with the law of the land.”

Normally worshiping in a converted in-door movie theater near 51st Street and Memorial Road, the church had planned to use the drive-in theater to have services without violating Tulsa’s COVID-19 shutdown.

The Tulsa Health Department had approved the idea earlier in the week, including plans for Pastor Tom Dillingham to preach from the back of a flatbed truck while congregants stayed in their cars.

But Mayor G.T Bynum issued a safer-at-home order effective at 11:59 p.m. Saturday, banning “all public and private events or social gatherings outside of a family or living unit” until April 16.

After staying open Saturday night, the Admiral Twin will cancel movie showings Sunday night, owner Blake Smith told the Tulsa World.

He will seek clarification from the mayor’s office Monday on whether the drive-in could reopen under the new restrictions.

“If he wants us to stay closed, we’ll stay closed,” Smith said.

“We stay opened because we wanted to give people with cabin fever a place to go and still maintain social distancing. But if we need to close, we’ll close. Whatever it takes to get this all over with as soon as possible.”

This example from Las Vegas, as reported by John Przybys of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, April 9, 2020:

The pastor of a Las Vegas church who had been planning to conduct a live Easter service now says the church will only stream the service on YouTube.

The Rev. Joseph Guy, lead pastor of Open Arms Community Church, 2800 W. Sahara Ave., had been planning a live service for Sunday. On Wednesday, he announced plans to stream the service on the internet with just a handful of church staff members in the sanctuary, and offered the public the option of watching the service from their cars.

However, Gov. Steve Sisolak announced a few hours later that drive-in services, as well as religious gatherings of 10 or more people, now are prohibited in an effort to stem the spread of the novel coronavirus.

Guy said after Sisolak’s announcement that the church now only will livestream Sunday’s 6 p.m. service. Three to five church members will be in the sanctuary to handle the streaming, he said, and weekly services after Easter also will be livestreamed only.

“I think that’s probably the best option for us,” Guy said, although not being able to conduct a live Easter service to open the new church is “definitely a big disappointment for me.”

Guy said his goal was to “foster a sense of community on the biggest day in Church history.” He added that he holds “a deep respect for Governor Sisolak,” but called cancellation of the live service “a hard pill for me to swallow.”

One Las Vegas City Councillor has criticized the Governor's order, as reported by Blake Apgar of the Review-Journal, April 9, 2020 (link in original):

A Las Vegas City Council member and a group of religious leaders are speaking out against Gov. Steve Sisolak’s directive that bans gatherings of 10 or more people at places of worship.

Ward 2 Councilwoman Victoria Seaman gathered with faith leaders Thursday to speak to reporters about her opposition to the governor’s order.

“We all understand that these are trying times and that we need to make sacrifices to get through them,” Seaman said. “We do, however, disagree that those sacrifices need to include the free exercise of religion that this country was built on.”

Seaman’s public opposition comes one day after Sisolak announced the order, which includes a ban on pop-up and drive-in services. She said she considered the prohibition of drive-in services an overreach.

Pastor Paul Marc Goulet of the International Church of Las Vegas said his congregation wanted to hold Easter services in the church’s parking lot with people attending in their cars. Goulet, like Seaman, called the directive an overreach. He asked that Sisolak reconsider his decision.

“We’re asking politely, we’re asking you with all of our hearts, that this is something that’s both physical and emotional and relational,” Goulet said.

Seaman said late Thursday that City Attorney Brad Jerbic determined the International Church of Las Vegas will be able to hold its drive-in Easter service as long as no one leaves their cars and nothing is handed out.

“So we are elated that they can have their Easter drive-in service, and we think that it’s completely following all the guidelines of safety for the coronavirus,” she said.

A spokeswoman for Nevada’s coronavirus response effort declined to comment on the concerns Thursday, but Sisolak said Wednesday that the decision was not easy. A devout Catholic and frequent churchgoer himself, the governor said he prayed about his decision before announcing it.

Sisolak previously issued a general ban on gatherings of 10 or more people in March.

Pastor David Teis of Liberty Baptist Church also took issue with Sisolak’s directive.

“We do not believe that the governor has a right constitutionally to tell us what we can and cannot do,” Teis said.

Because the free exercise of religion is a fundamental constitutional right enshrined in the First Amendment, any restrictions must pass the highest level of legal scrutiny. Rules must be written narrowly to serve a compelling government interest — in this case, to prevent of the spread of disease.

Sisolak encouraged religious leaders to use alternatives to in-person services, such as online streaming. The International Church of Las Vegas website said services are only being held online until further notice.

“We are living in unique times. Science tells us that putting large numbers of people together during a pandemic for any reason … is an invitation for disease to do its work,” Sisolak said in announcing the order Wednesday.

As of Thursday night, the state had reported more than 80 deaths from the novel coronavirus...

What's disappointing to this blogger are the wimpy responses of some church leaders. The governing authorities are far exceeding their legitimate authority, and have no right to deny the freedom of these churches to hold services, especially since the services can't possibly be regarded by anyone with any wisdom of violating the spirit of social distancing. Those who are taking away the freedom of Christians and others can be trusted only to keep dredging up the same old lies to justify such behaviour, especially "These measures are only temporary" and "It's all for everybody's good." Pastor Dillingham in Tulsa used the phrase "comply with the law of the land," but he fails to recognize that these aren't laws that have been passed by legislative bodies, but are just decrees being issued by dictators. The churches mentioned in the above articles should have gone ahead and held services, anyway, as a challenge to the unconstitutional behaviour of the authorities.

Two churches in Kansas decided not to take the denial of their rights lying down; as reported by Jason Tidd of the Wichita Eagle, April 16, 2020 (updated April 17, 2020):

Two Kansas churches and their pastors are suing the governor over her executive order that bans mass religious gatherings due to the novel coronavirus pandemic.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Wichita by Calvary Baptist Church in Junction City and pastor Aaron Harris and First Baptist Church in Dodge City and pastor Stephen Ormond. They are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly is the only defendant.

The federal lawsuit follows a narrow decision by the Kansas Supreme Court on Saturday that allowed Kelly’s mass gathering ban to prohibit religious services with more than 10 people. The ruling came before Easter Sunday worship services, and justices did not consider the constitutionality of the order relating to religious liberty.

The churches and their pastors are asking a federal judge to issue an injunction prohibiting Kelly’s executive order from being enforced, allowing churches to meet in-person with more than 10 people. The pastors also seek a declaration that the executive order violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Kansas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The willingness of churches in Kansas to stand up for their rights brought a positive result, as reported by Anna Spoerre of the Wichita Eagle, April 19, 2020 (links in original):

The Rev. Scott Hanks said Sunday’s in-person service at Heritage Baptist Church in Lawrence didn’t look much different from last weekend’s.

Congregants still sat with a pew between them to follow social distancing guidelines. They didn’t shake hands. The offering plate wasn’t passed around, and communion wasn’t administered.

The biggest difference: more people showed up.

Heritage Baptist Church is one of at least three churches in Kansas to continue holding in-person services as a legal battle continues over whether churches should be excluded from Gov. Laura Kelly’s executive order limiting mass gatherings to 10 or fewer people.

Local, state and national public health officials have said people should avoid gathering in groups, as part of a strategy to slow the spread of the new coronavirus.

Earlier this month, a board of the state’s top legislators overrode Kelly’s order. Then, the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the override hours before Easter.

The latest development came Saturday when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against part of Kelly’s executive order. The ruling paved the way for in-person religious services without violating the law.

Hanks, the pastor at Heritage Baptist in Lawrence, declined to say exactly how many people attended Sunday.

“I’m sure I could, but I better not do that,” he said. “I guess I don’t want to stir up more problems by giving out numbers.

But Hanks said the crowd had grown from the week before and that it was “absolutely” more than 10 people, adding that he “definitely had a good crowd today.”

As state officials in recent weeks began encouraging social distancing and placing tighter restrictions on gatherings, many churches turned to the Internet to stream their services without the physical presence of their laity...

...Pastors of two other churches — Calvary Baptist Church in Junction City and First Baptist Church in Dodge City — filed a lawsuit against Gov. Laura Kelly on Thursday, saying her order violated the first amendment and the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.

They are being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit.

On Saturday U.S. District Judge John Broomes issued a temporary restraining order against part of Kelly’s executive order.

“Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that a live controversy exists as to whether the Governor’s current restrictions on religious activity . . . violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion,” Broomes wrote in the ruling.

“Defendant has not argued that mass gatherings at churches pose unique health risks that do not arise in mass gatherings at airports, offices, and production facilities. Yet the exemption for religious activities has been eliminated while it remains for a multitude of activities that appear comparable in terms of health risks.”

As part of the Broomes’s order, the plaintiffs’ churches have to abide by 24 protocols, including those Hanks observed his congregation following Sunday.

Many of the church’s elderly members have been staying home, Hanks said. His congregation includes about 300 members. Some in attendance wore gloves and masks.

He noted that Douglas County had 43 confirmed cases and zero deaths as of Sunday, according to Douglas County health officials. No church members or relatives of church members have tested positive, he said.

“I am concerned, and obviously other precautions might have to be taken if there was some way the virus was in the church or somebody who had it,” Hanks said. “But there’s none of that.”

Hanks added it’s not possible for his church to stream services. There are no fiber optics on the side of Interstate-70 where the church sits, he said.

He’s also heard of churches hosting drive-up services in their parking lots.

“But you can’t get around that the Bible says ‘not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together,’” he said, referencing a passage from the book of Hebrews.

“There was no internet when the Bible was written,” he continued. “God intended for people to get together for church, and so that’s why we’re doing it, because we believe that’s what God wants.”

Hanks said he’s not taking the coronavirus lightly, acknowledging there is a risk when gathering.

He plans to continue following outlined precautions and holding in-person services for the foreseeable future.

“I just like people to know that we’re not some crazy cult group or something that demands for people to come to church,” Hanks said. “All we’re trying to do is during this virus time, is to leave a way out for people to be able to come to church.

“I look at it this way: Out of all the times that we need God, it’s now, so why would we close church doors during a time of national virus?”

In a news release Saturday, Kelly said the ruling is only the first step, adding that her order wasn’t about religion, but rather a public health crisis.

”There is still a long way to go in this case, and we will continue to be proactive and err on the side of caution where Kansans’ health and safety is at stake,” she said.

“Courts across the country have recognized that during this pandemic emergency the law allows governments to prioritize proper public health and safety...”

Meanwhile, the same things are going on in Trudeaupia Canada. Here's an example from Saskatchewan, as reported by Stephanie Taylor of Canadian Press, April 14, 2020:

NIPAWIN, Sask. - Saskatchewan's premier wants an explanation for why an Easter drive-in church service was prohibited over the weekend.

Scott Moe's office said the Saskatchewan Health Authority has been asked to account for its decision, as drive-in events seem to maintain safe physical distancing.

"While we must remain vigilant in observing physical distancing, we should also encourage innovative and unique ideas that support the ability of Saskatchewan residents to pull together while staying apart," Moe's office said in a statement Tuesday.

Other churches across the country have held drive-in services.

Moe's office noted that hundreds of people were allowed to pay tribute Monday to the family of Edmonton Oilers hockey player Colby Cave, who died of a brain bleed in Toronto. Vehicles stretching several kilometres lined a highway as his family returned home to Battleford, northwest of Saskatoon.

Last month, the province issued a public health order limiting gatherings to no more than 10 people, one of several restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Jordan Gadsby, lead pastor of the Nipawin Apostolic Church, said people were invited to an arena parking lot where they could tune into an Easter Sunday church service from inside their vehicles.

“We thought it would be worthwhile to try and do something a little bit creative and a little bit different," he said.

Gadsby said people in the community were excited about the event, which would have met physical-distancing requirements because nobody needed to step outside a vehicle or roll down windows.

"It’s good for people to have something to look forward to, even if we're not really in the same space," he said.

"When everyone’s stuck at home for long periods of time, it takes a toll on our mental health and our spiritual health."

On Saturday, he said he was called by a public health official who explained that complaints had been made about the drive-in service.

"I believe the wording was that you’re strongly recommended not to do this and we consider this to be a mass gathering, which goes against the public health guidelines," Gadsby said.

He told the official that worshippers wouldn't have physical contact, but there was still concern people would leave their vehicles and visit with one another.

To avoid placing the church and anyone attending at risk of being fined, the church decided to cancel, Gadsby said.

"Having to cancel this event was one of the most disappointing and discouraging moments of leadership for us."

During a press conference Tuesday, health authority CEO Scott Livingstone said the church didn't have a plan for keeping people inside their vehicles during the service.

Livingstone said he would follow up with public health officials, but added he believes the drive-in service presented different circumstances than the vehicular rally for the Cave family.

"A spontaneous event that we're not aware of is quite different than an event that was planned, advertised and that we received public concerns about," he said.

The Calgary-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms said it has sent a letter to the health authority expressing concern about the drive-in service being declared a mass gathering.

Jay Cameron, a litigation manager with the justice centre, said he believes what happened to the church wasn't justified, because no health risk was posed by people staying inside their own vehicles.

"People are longing for a sense of community during the coronavirus outbreak and they still have a right of freedom of association and religion as protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Cameron said charter rights should not be infringed on based upon hypothetical situations, such as people possibly leaving their vehicles.

He said he wants the health authority to admit it made a mistake and that it won't be repeated; otherwise, the centre will consider legal action.

It's interesting to note that the order issued in Saskatchewan came not from the province's highest elected official, but from a faceless bureaucracy--again, exceeding its legitimate authority.

In Calgary, police have shown themselves to be not representatives of God (as Romans 13 extremists like to promote them), but as bullies throwing their weight around. As reported by Keean Bexte of Rebel News, April 18, 2020:



This wasn't an isolated incident in Calgary, as reported by Mr. Bexte, April 29, 2020:



A similar incident occurred in Edmonton, as reported by Jeff Labine of the Edmonton Journal, April 24, 2020:

An Edmonton man who was handing out religious material in Old Strathcona last week is facing a $1,200 fine following complaints he wasn’t complying with physical distancing guidelines.

James Kitchen, a staff lawyer with the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, said on Thursday his client along with two other men were public speaking and distributing written material using a long stick with a claw at the end last Friday. Around 7 p.m. an Edmonton city police officer ticketed one of the three after initially warning them to leave.

Kitchen said the ticket was issued because his client wasn’t social distancing but he said cellphone footage taken by the three men shows that’s not the case.

“The fact that there is a pandemic doesn’t mean there’s no rule of law, doesn’t mean there is no Constitution,” he said. “In fact, I would argue that it is at that point those foundational principles on how our society operates is even more important.”

To minimize the spread of COVID-19, Alberta’s chief medical officer of health Dr. Deena Hinshaw mandated on March 27 that people gathering outdoors must be at least two metres apart.

Municipal and provincial officials have been granted additional powers to enforce public health orders and guidelines. Fines for violating a public health order start at $1,000...

...Cheryl Voordenhout, a media relations adviser with Edmonton Police Service, said in an email Thursday police received complaints about a small group in the area of 82 Avenue and 104 Street occupying the sidewalk, making it impossible for pedestrians to keep the two-metre distance.

“The group was asked to move one block north, where there is more room, and were given time to comply with the request,” she said. “After they did not comply, one member of the group was issued a ticket under the Public Health Act.”

Voordenhout said it is standard procedure to use the lowest intervention first before escalating to more stringent measures. She said after a verbal warning was not complied with, the next step was to issue a single ticket, rather than ticketing all of the members of the group.

Kitchen, who did not provide any additional details about his client over safety concerns, said the man has had run-ins with police before but didn’t elaborate. He said more details would be revealed if the ticket is challenged in court.

“They were staying put, they had their spot and they were just staying there,” Kitchen said. “According to what the officer said, the complaints were about people being annoyed about stepping around these guys because there’s the six-foot requirement. There were some accusations they weren’t maintaining that even though they were stationary the whole time.”

It's encouraging to see that one pastor in Ontario isn't giving in to police state bullying, as reported by Randy Richmond of the London Free Press, April 28, 2020 (link in original):

AYLMER — Police videotaped a drive-in church service but issued no tickets Sunday as a battle over the meaning of a provincewide emergency order reached new levels.

Church of God Pastor Henry Hildebrandt spoke for about a half-hour to members of his congregation, sitting in about 70 cars in the parking lot of the church, windows up and their radios tuned into the service.

Speaking from a covered platform outside the church, Hildebrandt gave a passionate defence of the need for churchgoers to meet on a Sunday morning.

“I am so glad, so glad we can do it like this. I can never be distant from you, never, I can never be distant from you,” Hildebrandt said. “We’re here this morning in order for you to cast your eyes on me . . . to come here so we can see one another.”

“So why don’t we just wave at each other and honk a little bit?” he said at one point, prompting one of several loud explosion of support from car horns.

“I was overwhelmed to see how many people did stop by to listen in and I also feel we did very well in social distancing,” Hildebrandt said after the service.

“This is not a gathering because people are staying in their vehicles. There was no crowd to be seen anywhere. When I preach, I use my hands, my arms, half of my preaching is by my actions. It’s very important to interact that way, As you saw we waved at each other and blinked the lights. It just makes all the difference.”

Aylmer police officers did not stop anyone entering the parking lot and helped with traffic after the service. They videotaped from the road and from the church driveway.

Watching and listening to the service was London lawyer Nick Cake, who is representing the church in any legal action brought by police.

“There were no laws being broken here. The spirit of the law is to keep people apart physically, not to keep cars apart in a parking lot. It’s to prevent public contact,” Cake said.

“The only ones out of their cars were you guys (about a dozen journalists) and the police.”

Cake said he hopes police witnessed the safety measures taking place.

“Hopefully they do see that everyone kept their windows up and this was just akin to a Costco parking lot. The right thing would be to continue to let people operate in this way.”

Hildebrandt said he understood police would be taking the videotaped recordings to the Crown’s office Monday to determine if charges should be laid.

Aylmer police Chief Zvonko Horvat said last week his officers would lay charges under an Ontario emergency order imposed to slow the spread of COVID-19 if the Church of God held the drive-in service, as it has done twice this month.

But The Alberta-based Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms says police don’t have the right to ban drive-in services.

“The Charter of Rights isn’t suspended just because we have an emergency facing our society. There are measures that are going to be justifiable that do restrict the freedoms we normally have,” Lisa Bildy of the justice centre said in an interview Sunday. “But there is a balancing act that has to happen and there always has to be a minimal impairment of those fundamental freedoms.”

The Church of God and other churches across Canada have come with solutions that allow congregations to worship together safely, said Bildy, a London lawyer.

“They’re not doing anything to jeopardize anybody’s health. I think there should be some accommodation from the authorities as well,” she said. “Parking lots all over the community are filled with people. If it’s in front of a store, it’s fine, but put it in front of a church and somehow it now becomes a problem.”

Bildy said she was waiting to see what Aylmer police would do before considering next steps.

Aylmer police were notified about both of the previous services and sent officers to monitor the gatherings, Hildebrandt said in an earlier interview.

A constable confirmed that officers witnessing the service last Sunday saw no violations, Hildebrandt said.

But a photograph of the church’s parking lot full of cars was posted on Facebook, generating negative comments to police, Hildebrandt said.

Individuals caught breaking Ontario’s emergency orders could get slapped with a $750 ticket. In more serious cases involving a court summons, convictions carry a maximum fine of $100,000 and up to one year in jail.

The fine increases to $500,000 for company directors and $10 million for corporations.

Hildebrandt said he has tried working with police, offering to pay officers to watch the service if that’s necessary to ensure safety measures are followed.

“I have tried every which way. But the chief, I would say he is on the wrong side of history. This morning this was the safest parking lot as far as COVID-19, this was the safest parking lot in town, by far.”

About 300 metres down the road from the church, people are allowed to park at the liquor store, get out and buy alcohol without any legal trouble, Hildebrandt said.

“We absolutely do not want to cause unnecessary disturbances in Aylmer. I don’t want to cause trouble. But I saw no way around it,” Hildebrandt said. “I know we were with God’s blessings this morning. We plan to be here next Sunday, the Lord willing.”

As reported by the London Free Press, April 26, 2020:



As reported by David Menzies of Rebel News, April 28, 2020:



Pastor Hildebrandt was interviewed by Andrew Lawton of True North, April 29, 2020:



Fortunately, Pastor Hildebrandt's determination to stand up to police bullying was rewarded, as reported by Mr. Menzies, May 2, 2020:



The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms issued the following press release on May 2, 2020 (links in original):

AYLMER: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (jccf.ca) today announced that it will file a Charter challenge against the Ontario government, on behalf of the Church of God in Aylmer, Ontario, for its infringement of the church’s freedom of peaceful assembly. Ontario authorities have threatened to fine the church despite its use of strict “social distancing” measures that eliminate any discernible risk to public health during their “drive-in” church services where people stay inside parked vehicles.

The Church of God, like other congregations across the country, has been prevented from holding in-person services, but found a creative and safe way to bring parishioners back together for worship while ensuring member and public safety. A drive-in service was held for the last three Sundays in their church parking lot, with congregants remaining in their vehicles with the windows up, listening to the service on the radio. Only members of the worship team, no greater than five in number, are permitted outside of their vehicles, and they also follow strict physical distancing guidelines.

Despite successfully conducting two such services with the approval of police, complaints were made by people who saw a photo of the Aylmer Church of God parking lot, and mistakenly assumed that the congregants were inside the building. The Aylmer Police Chief then threatened, on April 20, that any further services would be considered a breach of the law and subject to stiff penalties. Penalties could include fines of $750 to $100,000 and up to one year in jail.

The church held its third drive-in service on April 26, again abiding by all social distancing and public health protection measures. Police attended on the church’s private property, videotaping all of the vehicles and maintaining an ominous presence.

Although the provincial Crown Attorney declined to proceed with charges on this occasion, the Aylmer Police Chief has declared that this was an opportunity to “educate” the congregation, and that police investigation could again follow if complaints are received.

The Province’s Order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act prohibits gatherings of more than five people, including for the purposes of conducting religious services, rites or ceremonies. Despite the fact that many larger stores and businesses remain open, with varying degrees of success in limiting physical contact between customers, churches and other religious centres have been singled out and effectively closed.

The Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, like all laws in this country, must comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees citizens that the government will not infringe their freedoms of peaceful assembly and religion, among other fundamental freedoms. The onus is on government, not citizens, to show that the violation of Charter freedoms is “demonstrably justified.” Where there is a pressing and substantial concern, such as a declared public health emergency, reasonable restrictions may be imposed, but governments are required to violate Charter rights and freedoms as little as possible, only to the extent truly necessary to protect public health.

The Government of Ontario has had ample time to clarify its Order to ensure that it is not overly broad, and that it does not arbitrarily target religious groups. Recently, the Saskatchewan Public Health Authority reversed its ban on drive-in church services, after receiving a legal warning letter from the Justice Centre.

The Ontario government, copied on a letter from the Justice Centre to the Aylmer Police Chief last week, has failed to respond, leaving the church with no option but to commence legal proceedings.

“For many religious communities, coming together to worship is an important part of their faith, and while not perfect, solutions such as drive-in services allow them to exercise their fundamental freedoms of peaceful assembly and religion while still respecting the government’s orders to protect public health,” says Justice Centre lawyer Lisa Bildy.

“The measures taken by the Church provide much more safety to public health than long lineups of people waiting to get into the liquor store, or sitting in their vehicles bumper to bumper at the Tim Horton’s drive-thru – all permitted activities,” adds Bildy. “On Sunday mornings, the Church of God has the safest parking lot in town.”

“Citizens across the country are attempting, in a good-natured manner, to comply with the extraordinarily restrictive measures which have been imposed. The Covid-19 outbreak, however, does not suspend the exercise of the Charter. The restriction on religious gatherings, in which people exclusively occupy their personal vehicles on a parking lot while worshipping, is irrational, unnecessary, and not a minimal impairment of Charter rights,” concludes Bildy.

The Justice Centre is presently preparing court documents on behalf of the Church.

Pastor Hildebrandt's church held another drive-in service on May 3, 2020 without incident. As reported by Mr. Menzies, May 4, 2020:



I don't know if all those who showed up were regular attenders of that church, but I suspect that many were Christians from other churches who went to express solidarity with the church and pastor. The willingness of at least some Canadian Christians to stand up for their God-given rights and refuse to cave in to bullies is a positive development; let's pray that more Christians will have the courage to defend their freedom.

105 years ago: A Catholic priest takes his congregation to court, while America's most prominent evangelist offers politically-incorrect comments on the big fight

In the early 20th century, not only did newspapers print the text of major church sermons, but religious news items regularly appeared on the front page. Submitted for your approval, the following item from page 1 of The New York Times, April 6, 1915 (bold, capitals in original):

JAIL YAWNS FOR 102 ACCUSED BY PRIEST
------------------------------------
Metuchen Authorities Put to It to House Men Father Camadia Says Libeled Him.
-----------------------------------
NOT CELLS ENOUGH FOR ALL
------------------------------------------
Wholesale Arrests Follow Charge That Pastor Drank Too Much at a Pig Roast.
-----------------------------------------
Special to The New York Times

METUCHEN, N.J., APRIL 5--Unless there is a big supply of ready cash on hand tomorrow, Metuchen will have to build a lean-to to the town jail to accommodate the 102 members of the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church of South River, who are charged with having libeled criminally their pastor, the Rev. Father Paul Camadia. Fifteen of the parishioners were arrested today. The others will be apprehended tomorrow.

Furthermore, the order has gone forth to lock them up if they can't furnish bail. Among the accused are some of the most important citizens of Metuchen. The town jail hasn't nearly enough room for so many prisoners. Justice of the Peace William B. Black signed so many warrants today that his hand became cramped and Chief of Police Eberwin said it would be an all-day job to serve the warrants on the South River congregation.

The trouble started over a pig roast some weeks ago. Some of the congregation charge that Father Camadia became "intoxicated and hilarious," and proceeded to sing songs and strike persons in the street. They drew up a petition to this effect and sent it to Bishop John F. McFaul at Trenton. Whereupon Bishop McFaul sent it to Father Camadia.

The priest asserted that the charges were untrue. On the question of pig roasts, rum, duck suppers, and the like he has ideas akin to those of the Rev. Billy Sunday, and he even preached a sermon, he said, denouncing such things. Then he took the petition to court. The warrants followed.

"The petition which the congregation signed is so libelous," said Justice Black today, "that Father Camadia is justified in taking drastic action. Prosecutor William E. Florance is co-operating with me. Those who cannot furnish bail will be locked up."

And that isn't all. Father Camadia went before the Middlesex Grand Jury as complaining witness against his sexton and organist and another member of the congregation. He complained that they had broken up a service in the church on Feb. 28 by removing an emblem from the church and putting it in a saloon at Drury Hill.

The troubles of the South River folk have torn Metuchen in two. Father Camadia gave a parade and picnic tonight, and his followers turned out in force. Their rivals also got up a celebration. The police were ready to do their part if called on.

Billy Sunday (1862-1935) was a popular, if mediocre, outfielder with the Chicago White Stockings (1883-1887), Pittsburgh Alleghenys (1888-1890), and Philadelphia Phillies, batting .248 with 12 home runs and 170 runs batted in in 499 games. He was known for his speed, and stole 246 bases--84 in his last season.

In the 1886 or 1887 season, Mr. Sunday came to saving faith in Jesus Christ through the ministry of Pacific Garden Mission in Chicago. In 1891, he turned down a lucrative baseball contract offer in order to accept a position with the YMCA in Chicago. Mr. Sunday began hitting the "sawdust trail" as an evangelist in 1896, aided by his wife Nell, and became the most prominent evangelist in the United States in the first two decades of the 20th century. His popularity waned in the 1920s with the coming of radio and motion pictures. By the time of his death, it was estimated that Mr. Sunday had preached 20,000 sermons, to a total of over 100 million people (including repeat attenders). For more on Mr. Sunday, see Billy Sunday Online.

On December 26, 1908, Jack Johnson, a Negro American, defeated white Canadian Tommy Burns in Sydney, Australia to win the world heavyweight boxing title. Mr. Johnson's win, and his flamboyant behaviour--including his preference for white women--outraged white Americans. Former world champion Jim Jeffries yielded to public pressure and came out of a five-year retirement to fight Mr. Johnson in 1910, but Mr. Johnson won easily. After several years of attempts to find a "white hope," Jess Willard knocked out Mr. Johnson in the 26th round to take the title on April 5, 1945. The fight took place in Havana because Mr. Johnson was wanted in the United States for alleged violation of the Mann Act for transporting a woman across state lines for immoral purposes. Billy Sunday was in Paterson, New Jersey when the Johnson-Willard fight took place, and offered his comments on the event.

Unitarians, as their name indicates, believe that God exists in just one person, and thus deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. Unitarians also deny original sin and biblical inerrancy. The American Unitarian Association was established in 1825; it united with the Universalist Church of America in 1961 to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). It was the earlier Unitarian organization that was opposing Mr. Sunday. As reported on page 6 of The New York Times, April 6, 1915 (bold, capitals, in original):

SUNDAY IS HAPPY OVER PRIZEFIGHT
---------------------------------
He Picked Johnson for Winner, but Says White Men Should Be Glad Willard Won.
--------------------------------------------
AND "MA" SAYS "HURRAH!"
--------------------------------------------
"Too Much Booze and Too Much Paris," She Adds, in Diagnosing the Black Bruiser's Defeat.
------------------------------------------------
Special to The New York Times

PATERSON, N.J., April 5--Billy Sunday took a day off today, and in the limousine which has been put at his disposal as long as he is here he and his wife, "Ma" Sunday, toured the city and paid several visits, among them calls at several banking houses.

First, Billy dropped in on Mayor Robert Fordyce at the City Hall, and in response to a hearty greeting exclaimed:

"Well, you have a regular city here. I had no idea Paterson was such a large and bustling place. You should be proud of it."

Mrs. Sunday said she was pleased with the city also.

At Police Headquarters Sunday met Chief Bimson and the other officers and hen slid a couple of weights down the shuffleboard in the platoon room, declaring the exercise was "bully" for the stomach muscles.

Next the couple went to see "Jim" McCormick, Sunday's old "baseball sidekick, " who was in bed with an attack of rheumatism. McCormick greeted Sunday with the exclamation:

"Hello, Bill. You don't look five years older."

"The pleasantest moment in months," was the way Sunday described this meeting with his old friend. They talked over old baseball days for half an hour until Mrs. Sunday suggested that it was time for Sunday to get home and receive his newspaper interviewers.

Thought Willard "Easy Meat."

Sunday received a score of newspaper men. He was gowned in a silken bath robe, reclined in a big easy chair, and talked of his early baseball days. He showed considerable interest in the Johnson-Willard fight at Havana, and early in the afternoon picked "a winner" in the person of Johnson. When the returns came in Sunday said:

"I thought Willard was easy meat for Johnson, but the result is great. Every white man should be happy."

"Hurrah!" was "Ma" Sunday's comment. "It's a case of too much booze and too much Paris. Booze defeated Johnson."

Billy talked of the time when he quit baseball to work for the Y.M.C.A. at a salary of $83 a month. Previous to making the decision to enter evangelistic work for the Y.M.C.A. Sunday was swamped with telegrams, he said, offering him flattering salaries to stay in the baseball game.

"I remember my first meeting after I had started out to be an evangelist," he said. "It was in a tent in Perry, Iowa, and there were 500 people. Ma and I were more than worried, because we were afraid expenses would not be met."

Asked what he was going to do tonight, Billy said: "To bed at 7 o'clock and a good night's rest to be ready and fit for tomorrow's work."

Sunday said he intended to cut his meeting short tomorrow night, closing at 8:30 o'clock in order that he might attend the Philip Sousa Band concert at the Fifth Regiment Armory. The evangelist is acquainted with several members of the band, and said it was his intention to have a seat with them on the platform.

Unitarians Ready to Fight.

That the Unitarians are ready for Sunday's expected attack and are prepared to retaliate with well-known speakers armed with legions of facts about their religion was evidenced by the appearance of stacks of printed matter in the reading room which will be opened tomorrow at Orpheus Hall.

Mrs. Ethel B. Robinson of Paterson and Montclair, author of "The Religion of Joy" and "Glimpses of God," and prominent in the work of Unity Church, Montclair, is in charge for the present, and told something of the plans of the campaign. She said no meetings had been planned for April, but four would be held in May.

"Of course, if Mr. Sunday makes any attack on our religion or doctrines, speakers will be brought on at once," she said. Among the possibilities as speakers are former President William H. Taft, Dr. Charles W. Eliot of Harvard University, John Haynes Holmes, pastor of the Church of the Messiah of New York, and Rabbi Stephen M. Wise of New York.

Informed of Sunday's remark that he had no more fear of the Unitarians than he had of the saloonkeepers and that Taft was a "good scout," Mrs. Robinson said:

"Billy Sunday has no fear of the Unitarians and the Unitarians have no fear of Billy Sunday. We are all trying to do God's work in this world. The Unitarians are only too glad Billy Sunday is in Paterson,and they hope and expect he will do marvelous work here. No truly religious man scorns another religious man. Man needs to have his soul set on fire with a zeal to do God's work. The tiny baby is not devilish, but is a spark of God."

Among the pamphlets of the Unitarians is one entitled, "What Do Unitarians Believe?" In addition to an analysis of the Unitarian pledge it contains a long list of America's prominent men who profess the Unitarian faith. Mrs Robinson said that from now on until the close of the Billy Sunday meetings the reading rooms would be open to the public and every opportunity would be given the people of Paterson to learn the true principles of the Unitarian faith.