90 years ago--Association of National German Jews urges support for Hitler

I should have posted this a few months ago on the actual anniversary, but better late than never...On August 19, 1934, 17 days after the death of President Paul von Hindenburg, a referendum was held in Germany on whether to merge the posts of Chancellor and President. 95.65% of registered voters went to the polls, with 89.93% voting "Yes" to the following:

The office of the national president is united with that of the national chancellor. In consequence, the former powers of the national president pass to the leader and national chancellor, Adolf Hitler. He appoints his deputy. Do you, German man, and you, German woman, approve of the arrangement made in this law?

The 10.07% "No" vote was reported in Western newspapers as a triumph for the opposition to Adolf Hitler, who had been Chancellor for less than 19 months. However, that view proved to be inaccurate, as combining the offices of head of government and head of state had the effect of allowing Mr. Hitler to take the title Führer und Reichskanzler (Führer and Reich Chancellor), consolidating his dictatorial power as leader of the Nazi regime.

While looking for contemporary newspaper accounts of the referendum, I came upon the following article, published as "Special Cable to the New York Times and Montreal Gazette," published in the Montreal Gazette, August 18, 1934 (bold, capitals in original):

GERMAN JEWS TOLD TO VOTE FOR HITLER

-----

Berlin League Says Suffering Necessary to Mend Harm Done

-----

Berlin, August 17--The League of National German Jews, a small Jewish organization in Berlin, issued today a summons to all German Jews to vote for Chancellor Hitler in the plebiscite Sunday. The league declared the Jews' suffering in Germany had been necessary in order to clear away the damage done by "un-German elements." The statement reads:

"We members of the League of National German Jews, founded in 1921, have always, in war or peace, placed the good of the German people and the German Fatherland above our own good. Accordingly, we greeted the national uprising of January, 1933, although it brought rigors for us, for we saw it as the only means to clear away the damage done in fourteen unhappy years by un-German elements.

"We agree fully with the political testament of Reich President and Field Marshal von Hindenburg, who called the accomplishment of Reich Chancellor Hitler and his movement a decisive step of major historical importance and stated that reconciliation which will include the whole German Fatherland must follow the national awakening and unification of the German people.

"To the German Fatherland belongs body and soul that portion of the Jews who, like ourselves, know no other fatherland than Germany. In the spirit of the dead Reich President's testament, we support the unification of the offices of Reich leader and Reich Chancellor.

"We urge all Jews who feel themselves Germans to vote "yes" on August 19."

Until coming across this article, I had never heaerd of the Verband nationaldeutscher Juden (Association of National German Jews aka League of National German Jews). It was founded by Max Naumann in 1921 and was anti-Zionist, while favouring assimilation of German Jews into the German Volksgemeinschaft (folk community). The Association regarded the anti-Semitism of the early months of the Nazi regime as merely an attempt to stir up the masses. As to the likely future for Jews in Germany as a result of their support for the "Yes" vote in the referendum, it might have become apparent immediately if the following was any indication, as reported by Associated Press, and published in The New York Times, August 20, 1934 (bold in original):

Mueller Hails Hitler's Victory Over Jews: Says Anti-Semitism Is Christian Campaign

Berlin, Aug. 19--Five thousand members of the German Christian Society celebrating Chancellor Hitler's victory tonight heard Reichbishop Ludwig Mueller call anti-Semitism a Christian campaign.

His words left no doubt in the minds of his hearers that the German Protestant church under his leadership will be a racial institution.

"Hitler's fight is a fight for Christendom against Jews, the most savage enemies of Christianity," the Bishop asserted. "The German people, united today, may go through bitterness and distress but will win this campaign for Christianity even if the Jews get together and determine to destroy the nation."

Drawing a parallel between Christ and Chancellor Hitler, the Reich Bishop said:

"As in the days of the old Christians, faith is equal to confidence. Jesus, preaching the gospel, pleaded for confidence. So did our leader when he put the plebiscite as a question of confidence to the nation. We as true Christians had to give him our 'ja,' as only our consent gives him the right to defend our religion."

Bishop Mueller said the election result was "the beginning of the whole nation's Christianity, since it had the courage to vote for and stand behind the leader in his fight against the Jews."

Walter Kinder, Nazi radical church leader, closed the meeting, held in the Friedrichshain Convention Hall, with the German Christian society slogan:

"With God, under the leadership of Hitler, we will march on."

Richard Steigmann-Gall, in his book The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 (2003), refers to Reich Bishop Mueller as "a theological moderate among the German Christians" (p. 159).

How did the Association of National German Jews' policy of appeasement and assimilation work out for them? Not too well: the Association was declared illegal and was dissolved on November 18, 1935, and Mr. Naumann was arrested by the Gestapo the same day, and interned at Columbia concentration camp. He was released after a few weeks, and died of cancer on May 18, 1939 at the age of 64. Most other members of the Association were exterminated by the Nazis during the Holocaust in World War II.

The Verband nationaldeutscher Juden wasn't the only Jewish organization in Germany that supported the Nazis; Der deutsche Vortrupp. Gefolgschaft deutscher Juden (The German Vanguard: German Jewish Followers) was founded in February 1933--almost immediately after Mr. Hitler took office as Chancellor--by Hans-Joachim Schoeps, a professor of religions and religious history at the University of Erlangen. The German Vanguard was basically a youth movement of intellectuals, with a membership of 150 students, and regarded itself as a Jewish political movement within a resurgent German nationalism, while disdaining Eastern European Jews, Zionism, Marxism, and liberalism.

The German Vanguard was dissolved in December 1935, the month after the dissolution of the Association of National German Jews. Professor Schoeps, a monarchist, fled to exile in Sweden late in 1938, and spent World War II in that country, while his parents were deported to Theresienstadt concentration camp in June 1942, and his father died there six months later. Professor Schoeps returned to western Germany in the autumn of 1946, resuming his position at the University of Erlangen in 1950. He died on July 8, 1980 at the age of 71.

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.”

Small church in Las Vegas becomes a Covid-19 casualty

Online church services are better than nothing, but they're not an acceptable substitute for in-person services; as reported by John Przybys of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, February 15, 2021 (updated February 16, 2021) (links in original, inserted by blogger):

A church that opened last year with plans to conduct a live Easter service during the COVID pandemic is closing.

The Rev. Joseph Guy said Open Arms Community Church’s last service will be a virtual service on Feb. 28.

Guy last year announced plans to open the new church with a live Easter service attended by 35 to 50 members. At the time, state mandates prohibited gatherings of 10 or more people.

Guy, the church’s lead pastor, eventually canceled the live service. Instead, the Easter service was livestreamed, and Guy said the church never was able to recover from the live service’s cancellation.

While an established church may be able to more easily transition from live to virtual services, “when it’s a new church, you’ve got to make that personal connection with people,” he said, and not being able to do that “was just too much to overcome.”

Church members gathered for their first live service on Father’s Day, Guy said, but “we just couldn’t generate the crowd that we expected because it had been so long from Easter to June.”

Other services, mostly virtual, followed, but Guy said participation never exceeded 50.

The church’s final service will begin at 11 a.m. Feb. 28, and can be seen on Open Arms Community Church’s YouTube channel.

See also my post Covid-19 provides opportunities for police state persecution of Christians (May 7, 2020).

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.

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.

Mainland China's first Mormon temple to open

As reported by Keith Zhai and Tony Munroe of Reuters, April 6, 2020:

The Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon church, plans to open its first temple in mainland China at a time when Beijing has been clamping down steadily on religious freedoms.

The temple in the eastern Chinese city of Shanghai will help fill a gap left by renovation work since last July at the church’s temple in Hong Kong, Russell M. Nelson, president of the church, announced on Sunday.

He also said seven other temples would open, including one in Dubai, its first in the Middle East.

“In Shanghai, a modest, multipurpose meeting place will provide a way for Chinese members to continue to participate in ordinances of the temple,” Nelson said.

“Because we respect the laws and regulations of the People’s Republic of China, the Church does not send proselytizing missionaries there; nor will we do so now,” he said.

A former cardiac surgeon, Nelson has spent time in China, studied Mandarin and was granted an honorary professorship by China’s Shandong University School of Medicine.

In January, the church sent two planeloads of protective medical equipment to the Children’s Medical Center in Shanghai to help manage the coronavirus outbreak.

No official figure is available for the number of Mormons in China.

China’s constitution guarantees religious freedom but under President Xi, Jinping Beijing has tightened restrictions on religions seen as a challenge to the authority of the ruling Communist Party.

The government has cracked down on underground churches, both Protestant and Catholic, and has rolled out legislation to increase oversight of religious education and practices.

Chinese law requires that places of worship register and submit to government oversight, but some have declined to register and are known as “house” or “underground” churches.

The Chinese government formally recognizes five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism.

“Expatriate and Chinese congregations will continue to meet separately. The Church’s legal status there remains unchanged,” Nelson said.

“In an initial phase of facility use, entry will be by appointment only. The Shanghai Temple will not be a temple for tourists from other countries,” he said.

In 2018, the Vatican and China signed an agreement on the appointment of Roman Catholic bishops, a breakthrough on an issue that for decades fuelled tensions between the Holy See and Beijing and thwarted efforts toward diplomatic relations.

Residents of small town in Delaware triumph over ban on nativity scene

An item of apparent good news, for a change; first, the bad news, as reported by the Dover Delaware State News, December 5, 2019 (bold in original):

GEORGETOWN — Unattended displays, such as nativity scenes that sparked debate in Rehoboth Beach, are no longer permitted on The Circle in Georgetown.

A 2019 change in town code regarding The Circle’s usage policy now prohibits standing or unattended structures or displays in the picturesque heart of the town.

“No unattended displays are permitted on The Circle any longer,” said Georgetown Town Manager Eugene Dvornick. “It could be anything that is unattended — posters, signs or where somebody comes up and sets up a display or a table and leaves information. It would have to be attended the entire time.”

Town code authorizes the town manager to remove any display that violates this provision.

“Most of it is from a safety standpoint, as we have been seeing more and more winds, stuff blowing out from The Circle in the traffic lane,” Mr. Dvornick said. “Most of it’s for protection and safety.”

During the 2018 Christmas season, a nativity scene was placed in The Circle by the Georgetown Wesleyan Church, Mr. Dvornick said. It was permitted at that time, but, under the revised policy enacted by council earlier this year, is no longer allowed unless it is attended.

About a year ago, controversy arose in Rehoboth Beach when the city ordered the removal of a nativity scene on the Boardwalk Bandstand because it does not permit religious displays on city property.

In late November, more than 150 people, mostly Catholic protesters, assembled outside Rehoboth City Hall to request city officials reverse the ban and allow the display. Rev. William Cocco of St. Edmond Catholic Church asked city commissioners to let the nativity return to its “proper place” at bandstand.

As of Tuesday morning, Mr. Dvornick said there has been no backlash regarding Georgetown’s policy change.
“I’m sure that it’s like anything, that there will be people that support it, people that oppose it and some people that aren’t impacted either way,” he said. “So far, I have not had any feedback.”

Georgetown’s revised code states it “is unlawful for any person to place or maintain an unattended display in The Circle (any item, including a picture, statue, symbol, or similar item, that is intended to serve or be seen as a visual depiction or expression where the person sponsoring or responsible for the placement or maintenance of the display is not in attendance or in close proximity to the item displayed).”

As a result, a person may not affix any poster, sign or other object to trees, monuments, street signs, benches and other objects in The Circe.

Georgetown’s prohibition for unattended displays does not apply to displays placed by the town or other government entities for government purposes or to signs authorized by town code. However, approval of the town manager must be obtained prior to any placement.

Elsewhere in Kent, Sussex

In a sampling of downstate Delaware, municipalities reported they have not encountered any controversy associated with religious displays on government-owned property.

Millsboro Town Manager Sheldon Hudson does not recall grappling with an issue like the one Rehoboth Beach saw.
“That has never really come up since I’ve been here. We’ve never had to deal with the issue,” he said. “Certainly, the town understands why other cities take a different approach. We tend to take the ‘more versus less’ approach.”

All displays at Millsboro Town Center are provided by the town, Mr. Hudson noted.

If the town were approached about placing a religious display on town property, Mr. Hudson said he would probably present the request “to council and have town attorney review, especially with it being such a hot potato right now and so sensitive.”

Dagsboro, Seaford, Bridgeville and Ocean View each reported no laws or past problems with religious displays.
“We just have an internal policy that we don’t allow anyone to put any signage on town property, without prior approval,” said Bridgeville Town Manager Jesse Savage. “Since I have been here no one has ever attempted or requested to put that type of display. There is no ordinance, nothing in our code that prevents it or addresses it currently.”

Kent County Levy Court does not a formal policy on religious displays, according to a spokeswoman, who said she was unaware of any related problems arising at county headquarters.

A spokeswoman for Dover wrote in an email the city has or will put up decorations for the upcoming Christmas holiday, such as lights and a Christmas tree, but lacks an official ordinance.

“Living in a diverse community we are fortunate enough to have representation from almost all organizations and churches and have confidence that they depict our community very well as a whole for the City of Dover,” Kay Sass said.

Controversy in Rehoboth

According to Rehoboth Beach Mayor Paul Kuhns, part of the issue with the nativity scene stemmed from a misunderstanding and misinformation.

“Going back to last year there was a miscommunication between the parties as far as being able to put the nativity scene — I think it was the Catholic church that put it up, St. Edmond’s — at the bandstand,” Mayor Kuhns said. “There was a conversation, and the next day the nativity scene just appeared.

“Unfortunately, the group that put up the nativity scene did not get permission and did not get a permit. Because we have a policy about religious displays on public property, we asked them to take it down and it was taken down. A lot of people were up in arms about it last year and certain facts got lost in translation.”

As a follow-up, the city met with local religious leaders in attempts to plan for 2019.

“It turned out they wanted to have the opportunity to share and be inclusive. The only thing that we heard of was that the manger, or this creche, would come up again,” said Mayor Kuhns.

Most of the leaders that met with Rehoboth City Manager Sharon Lynn “really had no inclination to go one way or the other,” according to the mayor.

For the second year in a row, the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce offered to host the nativity scene in front of a building it leases.

“The city manager made that offer from the chamber to St. Edmond’s Church back in October. They did have a protest vigil, very peaceful out in front of city hall a week or so ago,” Mayor Kuhns said. “And again, there has never been any kind of answer coming out of St. Edmond’s to the offer that was made by the chamber that was signed off on by the city.”

“What is interesting is the property that the chamber has offered is right next door to where the creche was placed for probably 12 or 13 years,” he said adding the city offered to stop parking permit in front of the chamber “so it would be very visible as you drive into town on Rehoboth Avenue.”

Before 2018, the display had not been at the bandstand for more than a decade, the mayor said.
“A lot of people have been throwing out the false facts, if you will, about historically of how it’s always been at the bandstand. That is just not the case,” said Mayor Kuhns.

“Factually, the city has never said there can’t be any kind of religious displays in the city of Rehoboth.
“I’m all for it on private property. People are entitled to do whatever they’d like on private property. However, on public property the city needs to remain neutral.”

The town's action sparked an immediate and large negative reaction, as indicated by the following comments:

• So there won’t be any display for any holiday, got it. — Erik Pepper

• Kinda goes beyond holidays, the ordinance says “no standing or unattended structures or displays.” — Brian P Slattery

• It should include political signs. — Chuck Mankin

• Just put it on visible private property. Problem solved. — Tyler Beguiler

• Remember this on Election Day. — Gene Hansen

• Then there shouldn’t be a “Christmas” tree anywhere on pubic property either – after all there is “Christ” in this display!!! — Lynne Bassett Spear Bonfiglio

• Next “In God we Trust” will be erased off money. — Anthony C. Willey Jr.

• Grabbing at straws aren’t we — looking for reasons why we can’t have a nativity scene. Of all the stupid reasons “something might be blown into the street!!” Let’s just tell it like it is: We are catering to the hateful few — Mary Grampp Brown

• People are still acting like this is going to hurt their Christmas. Christmas isn’t being canceled. You’ll still overspend for people you don’t even like. You will still go about your day-to-day life. — Paul Kennedy

• So they’re no longer going to put flags up for Memorial Day? — Monica Prettner

• Overload your homes with Christmas cheer. — Toni Thomas Bergfelder

• And people ask why I moved to Florida. Besides the great weather we have “In God We Trust” on our license plates! — Beth Rosebrooks

• Do a live one. — Tim Shockley

• Other banned under this rule should be Santa house, wreaths, pole decorations, Christmas tree, lights — this can too blow into ongoing traffic since not under constant supervision like the nativity scene. — Robert Ray

• Live nativity scenes are attended. Local churches, lets fill the calender up until Christmas. — Mack Townsend

• The “safety” issue is a coverup! Unattended displays have never been a problem before. The nativity scene has been up for years! It’s the unhinged left that pushed the mayor into a corner where they got their way. He has got no backbone. People need to start standing up for Christ! You deny Him, He will deny you! This is so sad! — Abby Fink

• So, any unattended item should be considered abandoned properly right? — Allen Cramer

• Boycotting the Georgetown celebrations, that is the only way to show this elected officials we are not happy with their decisions, then vote this people out of office. That is our problem today. No one bothers to vote and this idiots hold office for years and start to feel powerful and no longer care what we the people think or want. — Marie Cutillo Thompson

• I say we ban any Delaware official from putting up signs for their reelection campaign. — Reddy Hannum

• But they are still having a parade and the Santa house. Why is Santa OK and Jesus is not? So sad and hypocritical. I will be at the live nativity instead. — Daun Benussi Crane

The residents of Georgetown responded with more than words, as reported by the Delaware State News, December 9, 2019:

GEORGETOWN — Thanks to an avalanche of response and support spurred initially by the Good Ole Boy Foundation, The Circle in the heart of Georgetown will host nativity scene after all.

It will be a live nativity, as unattended displays of any kind on The Circle are now prohibited under a town of Georgetown policy revision approved by council earlier this year.

“It’s a ‘go’ for sure,” said Josh Wharton, Good Ole Boy Foundation spokesman.

Good Ole Boy Foundation member K.C. Conaway, with Dagsboro Church of God’s youth ministry, said, “It is going to be an awesome event from our community. We’ve got an awesome community. It is just one of those things where it is time to come together … and let the community speak for itself.

These are some of the beliefs and traditions that we hold dear.”

So, beginning Wednesday, the game plan is to have the live nativity on The Circle from 6 to 8 p.m. each night through Christmas Eve.

As of Sunday, about a dozen churches from throughout Sussex County had pledged to participate in staging the live nativity. Organizers anticipate participation requests will only grow.

“We thought that we would have enough community support. It seemed like the support was there already and they just needed somebody to take action,” said Mr. Conaway.

The live nativity idea arose after word spread through media and social media last week that unattended displays and structures, such as nativity placed on The Circle previously by the Georgetown Wesleyan Church are prohibited following the town’s revision of The Circle Use Policy. Georgetown Town Manager Eugene Dvornick said revision is primarily geared toward public safety and protection.

“We fully understand the decision made by the town of Georgetown, and after hearing the backlash of that decision, we felt our community wanted this … and we accepted that challenge,” said Mr. Wharton.

“It was a matter of just people responding to a difficult decision. We don’t know the circumstances upon which the decision had to made. We are not in their shoes,” Mr. Conaway said. “But we just decided that, ‘Hey, if you can’t do an unattended display, then we can make it attended.’”

Permission has been granted from the town.

“We are really humbled,” said Mr. Conaway. “We are appreciative of the town giving us the opportunity to do this. We had to file a permit and get it approved. We went through the proper chains. We’ve been in communication with town officials and the Georgetown police. We’re just trying to do it the right way.”

The structure – which resembles a typical stable, Mr. Conaway said – was built over the weekend. It will be broken down and totally removed from The Circle after each nativity night.

Some nights may be pending, based on weather. “But we’re going to try to get out there as many nights as we can. So, we’re looking at about 14 nights,” said Mr. Conaway.

Nativity-type clothing and costumes are in the works for participants.

Mr. Conaway emphasized that is not a protest, but an alternative, one that hopefully will bring churches of different denominations and people of all ages, races and nationalities together as participants and nativity audiences.

The GOBF opted to go through the church route for nightly staffing, which is ongoing online.

“We’ve had a lot of churches as far as membership and individuals from churches reach out to us wanting to get involved,” said Mr. Conaway. “We knew this was going to be a pretty massive effort just to try to coordinate everyone being there. So, we decided that we would just try to reach out to churches first, because they can bring a group of people.”

“We are trying to make this an opportunity where we can do something together to benefit the community. You’ve got Methodist church, Baptist church, Pentecostal churches … you’ve got all of these different denominations all coming together,” Mr. Conaway said. “We’re going to have an online signup to kind of organize the masses.”

In keeping with the season in conjunction with the live nativity, the GOBF is promoting the opportunity to give back. Each week, the plan is to feature two “real good organizations in the community,” Mr. Conaway said.

“We figure this is about Baby Jesus, so we’re going to see what we can for do for the Sussex County Pregnancy Care Center, and we’re looking at doing the Sussex County Foster Parent Association,” said Mr. Conaway. “We are asking for people to bring out donations.”

The kinds of donations needed will be posted on the Good Ole Boy Foundation Facebook page, Mr. Conaway said.
Additionally, plans are to include traditional cold-weather holiday refreshments.

“We are hoping to have cookies and hot chocolate,” said Mr. Conaway. “So, if people come by and if they want to drop off a donation, we’ll grant them with a friendly cup of hot chocolate and cookies. It’s a win for the community.”
The live nativity materialized in about seven days.

“It has been about a week birthing the idea,” said Mr. Conaway. “There was a series of phone calls that were made by a group of guys and ladies that sparked this idea. We realized very quickly that this is something that people are very passionate about. We, Good Ole Boys, are here to help our community when we are in need.”

As reported by Glenn Rolfe in the Delaware State News, December 12, 2019 (link in original):

GEORGETOWN – In what is being hailed a spectacular production, the birth of Baby Jesus was brought to life Wednesday evening on The Circle in Georgetown with the first of 14 planned live nativity events.

The live nativity became a reality in less than a week through a massive community effort spurred initially by the Good Ole Boy Foundation.

Local churches with members in costume have pledged to participate in the nativity showings, scheduled from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. each evening through Christmas Eve – weather permitting.

The live nativity comes in response to a recent town of Georgetown code change governing The Circle Use Policy that prohibits all unattended structures and displays, such as the nativity scene that was previously placed on The Circle by a church in Georgetown.

The revision was in the realm of public safety and protection, according to town officials.

The huge stable/manger – which has wheels allowing for easy movement – was built last weekend through Duke’s Lumber and a crew of skilled volunteers.

As a backdrop, the nativity also features the Christmas Star and an angel raised in the heavens above the stable.

There will be free hot chocolate and cookies nightly, plus chances for youngsters to win a special prize each evening.

In the spirit of giving, organizers welcome donations to support the Sussex County Pregnancy Care Center and the Sussex County Foster Parent Association.

For more information and updates, visit the Good Ole Boy Foundation Facebook page.

To sign up for the nativity, visit the newly created website: www.nativityonthecircle.com.

Local Satanists decided to stage their own event, as reported by the Delaware State News, December 13, 2019:

GEORGETOWN — The First State Satanists group has received permission from the town of Georgetown to hold a vigil on The Circle Dec. 21, the same date and time as a live nativity spurred by the Good Ole Boy Foundation.
Georgetown Town Manager Gene Dvornick said he received a “Circle Use Permit” request from the Delaware-based group and it has been reviewed and approved.

First State Satanists, a non-theistic modern satanic group, plan to hold a public candlelight vigil in observance of the winter solstice, the group announced in a press release Friday.

Per the request to the town, First State Satanists plan to have a vigil “celebrating their deeply held religious beliefs and religious diversity in Southern Delaware.”

The First State Satanists’ permit for The Circle was requested for Dec. 21 from 5 to 9 p.m. The group’s release lists the time for the winter solstice gathering from 6 to 8 p.m.

The First State Satanists’ vigil would coincide with an ongoing live nativity also planned on The Circle that evening. Nightly presentations began there Wednesday, Dec. 11, and are scheduled from 6 to 8 p.m. through Dec. 24.

According to the First State Satanists’ release, “the winter solstice, also known as midwinter, has historically been celebrated as the last major feast before the freeze of winter to celebrate the new solar year and is a time of light and bounty. A wide variety of ancient religions have for centuries celebrated holidays marked by midwinter, including Yule and Saturnalia.

This event will serve as an opportunity for the group and the community to come together with love and light on the longest night of the year, in celebration of the longer days to come, the closing of the current year, and the beginning of a new decade.”

The live nativity effort was spurred by the Good Ole Boy Foundation stemming from community reaction to a recent town of Georgetown policy revision that in the realm of public safety and protection prohibits unattended displays and structures on The Circle. In past years, a church had put nativity on The Circle.

In a statement the Good Ole Boy Foundation said it “is proud to have pulled our community together to bring the first ever live nativity scene to the Georgetown circle over the last few days. The community response has been tremendous, and it has been enjoyable to see everyone come out to celebrate the true reason for the season. We certainly understand that other groups with different views have the same right to express their beliefs on public property. We look forward to continuing to bring joy to Delawareans with our display each night through Christmas Eve.”

Mr. Dvornick said both organizations were notified that “should the town receive a request for other events during the same timeframe as your event, after appropriate review, approval may be granted for use of another area of The Circle.”

In both instances, as part of their permits, The Circle is to remain open to the public at all times, not to block any pedestrians, to allow people that want to come up and take pictures of the Christmas tree, walk around the Circle, etc., Mr. Dvornick said.

“It is an open public space,” he said.

I always find it amusing that atheists and Satanists can never come up with anything original of their own, but can only come up with a counterfeit variation of Christian practices.

The nativity presentation turned out to be a success, as reported by Mr. Rolfe, December 25, 2019:

GEORGETOWN – A Sussex County community was united by the presentation of the living nativity on The Circle – a nightly two-week production spurred by the Good Ole Boy Foundation and its outreach network.

“We pray the Living Nativity has blessed your family this Christmas,” the Good Ole Boy Foundation stated in a Dec. 24 posting.

It wrapped up with a candlelight Christmas Eve service.

The overall production drew requests for the live nativity’s return in 2020.

“We’ll just say this: ‘Stay tuned! Something bigger is going to happen next year,” said Good Ole Boy Foundation spokesman Josh Wharton. “We planned this in a week. Give us year.”

“We’ll see how next year plays out, but I’m sure that there is going to be pretty good public cries for us to do something again,” said Good Ole Boy Foundation member K.C. Conaway, who proposed the living nativity idea following community response to a new Georgetown ordinance that prohibited placement of unattended displays, such as a nativity, on The Circle...

...And it far exceeded expectations of organizers.

“The support from the community has been phenomenal,” Mr. Wharton said. “When you go out to public places and you overhear conversations of people talking about it, it really lets you know that you hit home.”

“Our expectations have been blown out of the water,” Mr. Conaway said. “It has just been an incredible showing of the community. And not only that just the different churches, different organizations coming together. Different cultures, different denominations, all coming together for one thing, and that is to celebrate the real reason of season – Jesus Christ.”

“It has been a fantastic event for the community,” said Mr. Wharton. “It is really nice to see our community come together not only for Jesus Christ, but just to come together in general. We live in a time … where we feel as if we have different opinions, we can’t get along. And that is not the case. You might like red, I might like blue, but we can still be friends.”

Mr. Conaway would like to see this effort expand throughout the area.

“Hopefully, some of these other churches, some of these other organizations … we’d love this to offshoot to different towns. Not just us doing it, but other people just kind of seeing the model that we have done and put together,” said Mr. Conaway. “We can have a peaceful time together. We can enjoy each other’s company, meet people that we have not seen in 20 years.”

As expected, one of the largest attended nights for the live nativity was Dec. 21, the same evening a group, First State Satanists, with permission granted by the town, held a candlelight vigil on The Circle in observance of the winter solstice.

“You know what? We love them. And Jesus loves them. We’re going to pray for them,” said Mr. Wharton. “We don’t agree with their message but we 100 percent support them being here. They can do what they want so long as it’s peaceful, just like we can. And that’s why we live in the greatest country in the world – and the greatest county.”

Estimates of 800 to 1,000, attended the Dec. 21 live nativity.

“Seeing this tonight, seeing everybody show up just kind of charges us up to do even more possibly next year,” Mr. Conaway said.

Ironically, this shining chapter in 2019 probably would never have occurred had it not been for the backlash and criticism of Georgetown officials following word of a new town ordinance governing use of The Circle that prohibits unattended display and structures.

A local church, Georgetown Wesleyan Church, had previously placed an unattended creche on The Circle.

As an alternative, Mr. Conaway approached the town with a live nativity proposal and a permit was granted. The GOBF network swung into action, support grew, a plan was put in place and within a few days, it was showtime.

But the plan was to do more than just a live nativity.

Two organizations with connections to infants and young children – Sussex Pregnancy Care Center and Sussex County Foster Parent Association – were designated as recipients of requested donations.

“It’s all about a baby. These last two weeks of December are all about a baby, Baby Jesus, and we wanted to help the babies in our community,” said Mr. Wharton...

...So, come December 2020, Sussex Countians may have an even better reason to stay in Sussex.

“Especially,” said Mr. Conaway, “if you give us a year to plan.”

“Words can’t describe how much this has meant to us,” said Mr. Wharton.

“We never imagined when we started this three weeks ago that we’d have the following and the support and the lives that would be touched through this little act that we’ve done. It was worth every minute when you come out every night and give your time during the holiday season just to show support for the true meaning of the season.”

“So, stayed tuned for next year,” Mr. Wharton added. “Because we can guarantee you it is going to be bigger and better.”

While the result of this seems like good news, there's a danger of the fellowship becoming too broad, and that real Christian churches might become unequally yoked with unbiblical churches, and that the event will become merely a community service event. I pray the Christians of Sussex County, Delaware will exercise discernment in their fellowship and actions.

Swiss voters, in referendum, back anti-"homophobia" law

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

More evidence that the promotion of homosexuality isn't evidence that God's judgement on a society isn't just coming, but is already underway; the churches are presumably as impotent in Switzerland as they are elsewhere in Europe and in much of what used to be Western civilization. As reported by Agence France-Presse, February 9, 2020:

Switzerland on Sunday voted strongly in favour of a new law against homophobia in a referendum despite opposition from the populist rightwing Swiss People's Party (SVP), according to a projection.

The projection published by GFS Bern polling and research group found that 62 percent had voted in favour of the reform, with a margin of error of three percent.

The new law will widen existing legislation against discrimination or incitement to hatred on ethnic or religious grounds to include sexual orientation.

"This is a historic day," Mathias Reynard, a lawmaker from the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland who initiated the reform, told Swiss channel RTS 1.

"It gives a signal which is magnificent for everyone and for anyone who has been a victim of discrimination," he said.

The change was passed by the Swiss parliament in 2018 but critics, who believe it will end up censoring free speech, had forced a referendum on the issue.

Eric Bertinat, an SVP local lawmaker in Geneva, told AFP before the vote that he believed the law was "part of an LGBT plan to slowly move towards same-sex marriage and medically assisted reproduction" for gay couples.

Marc Frueh, head of the Federal Democratic Union of Switzerland (EDU), a small party based on Christian values, said after the projection: "I accept defeat".

"We will keep a close eye on how the law is implemented by the courts," he told RTS 1.

All of Switzerland's major parties except the SVP, the biggest political force in parliament, support the law.
Rights campaigner Jean-Pierre Sigrist, founder of an association of gay teachers, had said before the referendum that the new law might have stopped him getting beaten up outside a bar in Geneva four decades ago.

"And maybe I would not have been laughed at when I went to the police," the 71-year-old told AFP, adding that he hoped the reform would help to counter a resurgence of intolerance against gay people.

Sigrist said he supported freedom of expression, "but not the freedom to say anything at all".

Under the new law, homophobic comments made in a family setting or among friends would not be criminalised.

But publicly denigrating or discriminating against someone for being gay or inciting hatred against that person in text, speech, images or gestures, would be banned.

The government has said it will still be possible to have opinionated debates on issues such as same-sex marriage, and the new law does not ban jokes -- however off-colour.

"Incitement to hatred needs to reach a certain level of intensity in order to be considered criminal in Switzerland," Alexandre Curchod, a media lawyer, told AFP.

But he admitted that there could be exceptions "if it can be shown that, under the cover of artistic production or joking, someone is in fact engaging in incitement".

Gay rights campaigners were divided over the legislation.

A group called "No to Special Rights!" is opposed, arguing that the gay community does not need special protection.

Switzerland is holding a referendum on a law that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation.