This week California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 1441.  After doing significant research into this law, I believe it is a disaster for California's private religious organizations, particularly colleges, universities, and day care centers.

The official analysis of this bill says that:

        Existing law prohibits discrimination on the basis 
        of, among other things, race, national origin, 
        ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, 
        color, or disability, against any person in any
        program or activity conducted, operated, or 
        administered by the state or by any state agency,
        or that is funded directly by the state, or that 
        receives any financial assistance from the state. 
        Existing law also requires, with respect to disability, 
        that these programs and activities meet the 
        protections and prohibitions contained in certain
        provisions of the federal Americans with Disabilities 
        Act of 1990, and the federal rules and regulations 
        implementing that act, or state law if the state 
        protections and prohibitions are stronger.

        This bill would add sexual orientation to these 
        provisions and define for these purposes "sex" and 
        "sexual orientation."

        The bill would also expand the definition of discrimi-
        nation under these provisions to include a perception 
        that a person has any of these enumerated character-
        istics or that the person is associated with a person 
        who has, or is perceived to have, any of these
        characteristics.

The legislative analyses of the bill extend and clarify what effects the law will have.  The Assembly floor analysis says this:

        Some of the programs that would be affected by this 
        bill are: Medi-Cal, the California Work Opportunity and 
        Responsibility to Kids, food stamp programs, unemployment 
        and disability unemployment insurance, workers' compen-
        sation, financial aid programs, child support services 
        programs, services for veterans, legal services programs, 
        home loan assistance programs, licensing of businesses, 
        government contracting and procurement activities, and 
        voter registration.

The Senate Judiciary Committee analysis is even more extensive and revealing:

        Because Gov. Code Sec. 11135 covers not only the 
        state but also state agencies and any program or 
        activity at the local level that receives funding from 
        the state, the impact of this bill is both wide-ranging 
        and deep.

        It will also affect contractors with the state (such as 
        nonprofits), where the services provided locally are 
        funded directly by the state or where the contractor 
        receives any financial assistance from the state.

        Some of the programs that would be affected by this bill 
        are: Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food 
        stamp programs, Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Com-
        pensation, financial aid programs administered by the 
        University of California or the California State University, 
        child support services programs and services for veterans, 
        legal services programs, home loan assistance programs, 
        licensing of businesses, government contracting and 
        procurement activities, and voter registration.

Because it is unlikely that homos-xuals are encountering discrimination in, for example, the distribution of food stamps in California, it is worth analyzing carefully who exactly the California legislature believes may be discriminating against them.  Two likely targets emerge (with certain others possible, which I will enumerate in a moment).

Private religious colleges and universities in California depend to a significant degree on the distribution of Cal Grants to their students.  For those who are not aware, Cal Grant provides very significant financial aid to college students, and that aid does not have to be repaid.  When I attended Biola University a number of years ago, the annual tuition and fees came to around $8000.  Pell Grant awarded me approximately $1200 per year toward that amount; my Cal Grant, on the other hand, came to around $5000 per year.  I worked hard to put myself through college, but the truth is that without the Cal Grant, I would have been relegated to the state university system, because there is no way I could have afforded a private Christian school.  Now Biola is faced with a choice:  Put aside their religious convictions that homos-xual is wrong and hire them anyway, or lose many of their students, who can't afford to attend there without Cal Grant.

Private day-care centers that accept CalWORKS are the other significant target of this legislation.  If I understand the program correctly, lower-income families receive vouchers to pay for day care at any center they choose.  Now, California's religious day-care centers are also faced with this choice:  Hire homos-xuals, even transgendered and transvestite individuals, or lose most if not all of their CalWORKS-eligible families.

I believe there may be other targets in view as well.  Church-based food banks and other charitable organizations that have received state aid will also be faced with this kind of difficult choice.  If California ever institutes a school voucher program (which I'll grant is unlikely in their current political climate), religious K-12 schools will have to deal with the same issue.  Homeschoolers who currently accept state help in the form of textbooks and curricular materials may face discrimination (at the moment I can't see grounds for this discrimination, since homeschoolers are unlikely to be hiring people).  It remains to be seen whether state-provided workers compensation will be denied to organizations that discriminate against homos-xuals, or whether private companies run by religious people will be denied government contracts if they refuse to hire gays. 

I have read analyses that suggest police and fire protection would be denied to religious people and organizations that believe homos-xuality is wrong.  I find that argument to be a bit of a stretch.  It seems to me there are plenty of reasons to believe this law discriminates against religious individuals and organizations, without resorting to extremist rhetoric.  I'm sure there will be challenges to the law in court; however, in California's judicial environment at the moment I have serious doubts the challengers will succeed.  This is a dangerous and unfortunately almost irreversible law (how easy will it be to remove a protected group from the anti-discrimination laws?). 

The rest of the nation must be vigilant - none of us are far from California's path in our own states.  We need to vigorously fight for religious freedom, or we may soon find ourselves without it.

The following paragraph was included in the Voice of the Martyrs weekly newsletter I received yesterday.  

        Uzbekistan intends to impose massive fines and jail 
        people and the leaders of their religious communities 
        for sharing their beliefs outside places of worship. 
        The proposals were made at an August 4th meeting 
        of religious leaders, called by the state Religious 
        Affairs Committee. Those attending the meeting 
        were representatives of state-registered religious 
        organizations, including the Spiritual Administration 
        of Muslims in Uzbekistan, the Russian Orthodox 
        Diocese of Central Asia, the Catholic Church in 
        Tashkent, the Jewish community, the Baptist Union 
        and the Full Gospel Church. All unregistered religious 
        activity is illegal in Uzbekistan. The state Religious 
        Affairs Committee told the religious leaders that they 
        and their clergy must stop their members and those 
        who regularly attend places of worship from sharing 
        their beliefs with anyone outside their churches. The 
        fine for sharing their beliefs would be between 200 and 
        600 times the minimum monthly salary. Persistent prosely-
        tizing would impose jail sentences between three and 
        eight years on them and their religious leaders. Leaders 
        of religious communities are fearful of openly attacking 
        the proposals because of the danger of reprisals against 
        their communities by the authorities. There is currently 
        a crackdown on religious believers of many faiths taking 
        place in Uzbekistan.

This is one of the more severe official sanctions of religious freedom taking place today.  We need to be in prayer for the believers in Uzbekistan, and for a change in the leadership of that government, particularly the Religous Affairs Committee.

How consistently does your member of Congress attend and vote on issues?  At this link, you can look up your Congressman (or woman) and see whether he or she attends consistently.  There are 13 members of Congress who have voted less than 85% of the time, and you may be surprised at who's on that list (hint: Cynthia McKinney is one!).  I encourage you to look it up, and to contact your representative if that is called for (either to compliment consistent voting attendance or to criticize excessive absence).

My apologies to everyone who reads this blog for the extremely light (read: nonexistent!) blogging the past few days.  I meant to post that blogging would be light due to two camping trips in 10 days, along with homeschooling my two daughters and starting our homeschool enrichment program - but life caught up to me before I got it posted.  (I also did not know in advance that when we got home from our camping trip on Sunday we would have no telephone service whatsoever until Monday morning.)

I will post as I can over the next couple of weeks; things are going to be very hectic but I will do my best to keep up with events.  For those who are following my devotional posts, I am continuing to read through Romans - chapter 9 was this morning. 

Hugh has posted tonight a really special letter from a battalion commander in Afghanistan.  It's a bit long, but is well worth the read.  It gives specifics on what is happening in Afghanistan - on exactly how much our soldiers are accomplishing.  And it puts a human face on our military's work there.  Follow the link - you'll be glad you did!

Bible Reading:  Romans 5

 Sometimes I get so familiar with the Bible, and so wrapped up in the technical issues, that I forget the simple, beautiful truths about salvation.  "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (v. 8).  "We have now been justified by his blood" (v. 9).  "When we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son" (v. 10).  The gospel - the good news - is so simple that even a little child can understand it; it's also so complex one can study it for a lifetime and never come to an end of it. 

We were God's enemies, living for ourselves, refusing to obey His laws.  But He reached down to us in our disobedience, gave His only Son to die in our place, and redeemed us through His blood.  As a result, He can remain holy, while still declaring us righteous through our faith in Jesus' finished work, justifying us and turning us from His enemies into His friends!  This kind of grace and mercy is what's missing from the doctrines of most religions, including the Islamic fundamentalists who are fighting us.

When I turn my focus from the stresses of daily life to consider what God has done in redeeming me, I go from discouragement and strife to hope and peace.  I am able to look at the future and rejoice rather than fear - even though the possibilities for war and disaster are still present.  I rejoice "in the hope of the glory of God," and also in the knowledge that no matter what happens, God will bring about my good and His glory.

Father, when times become difficult, You have promised to produce in me perseverance, character, and hope.  Help me trust You, the One who has turned me from an enemy into a friend, to do what is best for me.

Bible Reading:  Romans 4

"Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed."  What a statement that is!  Often in the midst of my busy, tumultuous days, I get so discouraged about life.  I get my eyes off the Lord and onto my circumstances.  I feel hopeless, and I wonder if things will ever improve or if anyone cares.  I even wonder if God cares, and I doubt His goodness and His love for me.  But faith isn't demonstrated much when life is good and things are easy.  We find out what kind of faith we have when the going gets difficult.  It's when things are tough, when life is discouraging and God's promise seems impossible, that we must demonstrate real faith.  And that's what Abraham had to do.  He first received God's promise of a child when he was seventy-five and Sarah was sixty-five.  Perhaps at that point, while difficult, the promise still seemed somewhat possible.  But as year after year went by, and he went from seventy-five to eighty, then to eighty-five, then ninety and ninety-five, it would have been easy to give up and decide God wasn't really there, He didn't really mean it, or He'd changed His mind.  But instead, Abraham made a choice - a choice to believe God against the odds - and God considered that faith to be righteousness.

Father, help me have faith like Abraham's!  When circumstances are discouraging and I wonder what You are doing in my life, help me to believe You even against the odds.  Give me a faith that overcomes obstacles, that trusts You no matter what is happening around me, "being fully persuaded" that You have the power to do what You have promised.

 Bible Reading:  Habakkuk 3

All too often, though I profess faith in God, when times appear to be getting tough I succumb to the temptation to fear, to be anxious about what's going to happen.  I claim to trust God, but when circumstances begin to look as if I'm going to become uncomfortable, my trust seems to evaporate.  How I need a faith like Habakkuk's - faith that finds confidence in God even when the circumstances look grim!  And isn't that the measure of real faith anyway?  True faith isn't measured by how we respond when we are in the comfortable, easy times, but by how we deal with the difficult times, when things look bleak, when food and physical comforts are hard to come by, when we suffer grief or loss and wonder where God is.

Father, I desperately need that kind of real, solid, lasting faith.  Throughout history, life has rarely been comfortable.  The majority of people have lived large portions of their lives in fear.  And Your people have been distinguished by their peace in fear-inducing circumstances.  Help me, Lord, to experience Your peace.  As the world faces increased turmoil, make me a witness of the confidence You provide.

 John at Powerline has a great article today on the significance of the violence in Iraq.  He gives the most recent statistics for violent deaths, and then compares those to the same statistics for Washington, D.C., for Medellin, Colombia, and for the years of the American and Spanish Civil Wars.

It's well worth reading the whole thing, but here's the basic summary:

        I think that in broad terms, these comparisons confirm 
        what I would intuitively judge about the current situation 
        in Iraq: the violent death rate there is significantly higher 
        than a "normal" murder rate, even a relatively high one 
        such as Washington, D.C.'s. At the same time, it is a 
        fraction (perhaps one-quarter) of the death rates that 
        have typified actual civil wars. Thus, Iraq is currently 
        suspended in a kind of middle ground; if American and 
        Iraqi troops succeed in imposing relative calm on Baghdad, 
        the violent death rate will likely recede to a high but 
        "normal" level. On the other hand, if the rate of violence 
        continues to climb as it has over the last several months, 
        it conceivably could reach a level that would represent a 
        real civil war.

It's this kind of analysis that makes Powerline an invaluable resource to me.  If you're not reading them regularly, I highly recommend the practice.

It would appear from this article in today's Daily Mail, a newspaper from the UK (HT: Drudge Report), that we are going to end up with racial profiling in airline security screenings whether we like it or not.  Highlights from the article:

        British holidaymakers staged an unprecedented mutiny
         - refusing to allow their flight to take off until two men 
        they feared were terrorists were forcibly removed.

        The extraordinary scenes happened after some of the 
        150 passengers on a Malaga-Manchester flight overheard 
        two men of Asian appearance apparently talking Arabic.

        The incident fuels the row over airport security following 
        the arrest of more than 20 people allegedly planning the 
        suicide-bombing of transatlantic jets from the UK to America. 
        It comes amid growing demands for passenger-profiling and 
        selective security checks.

        It also raised fears that more travellers will take the law 
        into their own hands - effectively conducting their own 
        'passenger profiles'. 

        Passengers noticed that, despite the heat, the pair were 
        wearing leather jackets and thick jumpers and were regularly 
        checking their watches.

Apparently these people were aware, alert, and concerned about people who were acting suspiciously.  It is perhaps unfortunate for these two young men, who may in fact have been perfectly innocent.  But if airline passengers felt confident that those people who were most likely to be terrorists (such as two young Asian men, traveling together, speaking Arabic, and dressed inappropriately for the weather) were properly screened before boarding the plane, this incident would probably never have happened.  The more I read, hear, and experience about my friend's 90-year-old grandma, my blonde 6-year-old daughter, or a fellow blogger's one-year-old son (sorry Dean - I hunted through Hugh's blog for ages but couldn't find your post!) being targeted for airport screening, the more I fear that the really dangerous people are being overlooked. 

Do I blame those folks for refusing to fly?  Not a chance!  If I'd been on that plane, I might have refused to fly myself.  I feel for the young men, since they were likely innocent; but I'd rather be alive on the ground than dead in the air.  At the moment, and given the sorry condition of airport security even five years after 9/11, I'd rather not take the risk.

The Drudge Report is carrying this article about the Democratic National Committee's decision to approve a new calendar for state primaries and caucuses.  The new calendar replaces the two January state votes with four; rather than just Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary election, January will now include Iowa, then Nevada, followed by New Hampshire and finally South Carolina - all within two weeks.  New Hampshire is obviously disturbed by losing its very significant influence in presidential primary elections, and today the Secretary of State in New Hampshire (who happens to be a Democrat himself) threatened to re-schedule their primary election to take place before all the others.

The DNC responded by voting to punish any candidate who campaigned early in a state that refused to accept their calendar, stripping those candidates of all the delegates gained from that state election.  In other words, if New Hampshire decides to go ahead and leap-frog their primary election ahead of the others', and if a candidate decides to campaign in New Hampshire in advance of that election, that candidate would lose all the delegates from New Hampshire at the convention (possibly losing the nomination in the process).

This feels very much like bullying to me.  The DNC appears to be telling the states, "You accept our new calendar, whether you like it or not; if you don't, your votes in primary elections and caucuses simply don't count, and we will choose whomever we like to be our candidate!"  I find it difficult to believe that ordinary, rank-and-file Democrats will tolerate this kind of bullying.  In fact, the leader of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire, Kathy Sullivan, said today that this vote would "rob presidential candidates from doing what they need to take back the White House.  Mark my words, in 2008 when our presidential candidates start to introduce themselves to the American public, the changes in the primary calendar will continue to take attention away from where it should be — on their visions for this country,” she said.

It seems to me the DNC has once again misinterpreted what it is the American people want.  If they not only continue to be weak on national security and to harp on issues that don't matter, without presenting a plan for improvement; if they insist on catering to the radical left wing of their party and on ignoring the moderate center; and if, in addition, they use this kind of heavy-handed tactics to force candidates and states to do what their radical leadership wants done, the Democratic Party is not going to last.  We have seen other major political parties fall by the wayside in the past, and while it is a rare occurrence, it may happen again.  Unless the Democratic Party makes some significant changes - and fast! - we may be watching its end. 

 This story on Fox News today discusses a letter, apparently from al-Qaeda, threatening to blow up the Taj Mahal.  Some are reluctant to believe it really came from al-Qaeda, wondering what they would gain from this threat (or its implementation).  But in fact, al-Qaeda stands to gain much from a threatened or perceived attack against India.

One thing that's been brought out on some of the conservative talk shows lately is that India is at the moment one of America's strongest allies. We have strong economic ties with India. They are fighting side-by-side with us in Iraq. They are perhaps Asia's strongest democracy, and are committed to remaining democratic, in spite of their unbelievably diverse religious situation, without in any way supporting terrorism.

The benefits to al-Qaeda in bombing the Taj Mahal might include breaking India's strong alliance with the United States, supporting Pakistani claims for disputed territory (as you mentioned), weakening India's economy (thus impacting our economy as well), killing those who are not Muslim or are not sufficiently radical; just about anything that could be accomplished by attacking Britain, Australia, or (formerly) Spain might also be accomplished by attacking and terrorizing India. And India is perhaps the easiest of these targets to attack now that America, Britain, and Australia are on such high terrorist alert.

Hopefully India will be able to take strong enough measures to prevent damage to a significant piece of their national history.

As one might expect, many people are already commenting on the decision yesterday by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor that the Administration's NSA surveillance program was unconstitutional.  It is unbelievable to me that such a short time after the London terrorist plot was disrupted, almost certainly by the NSA surveillance program, a Carter-appointed judge should strike it down.  Fortunately, it would appear the execution of the injunction against the program has already been stayed, and the decision will almost certainly be overturned on appeal.  Even many liberal commentators (including, amazingly enough, the Washington Post editorial board - HT: Powerline) are unhappy that her decision seems to be heavy on posturing and light on legal reasoning.

Among the strongest problems Judge Taylor's decision is her dismissal of the "state secrets" argument by which the administration tried to have the case dismissed.  Federal law and court precedent make it clear that cases in which either the plaintiffs' or the defendants' arguments rest on the disclosure of classified material MUST be dismissed without being heard.  The judge considered this issue fairly briefly, and concluded that enough of the program had already been disclosed that she felt she could make a decision.  However, later on in her decision, she makes it clear that at several points the government did not provide enough evidence to prove their case! 

Throughout her opinion she spends a lot of time sermonizing about how "the President is not above the Constitution"; however, she never succeeds at proving that he actually violated it.  The judge appears to have already made up her mind before she ever heard the case, and to have tried to invent arguments to support the position she held. 

For a more thorough analysis of the legal issues relating to Judge Taylor's decision, written by those who know much more about the law than I do, you will find this analysis by the Baseball Crank very readable and easy to understand.  You can also read this post by the Powerline attorneys, though I must confess it contains some "legalese" that makes it more difficult for a lay reader to understand.  This Powerline post, on the other hand, provides a very brief and succinct opinion that anybody can understand:

        Anyone who knows what legal analysis and legal argument 
        look like -- anyone who knows the requisites of legal reason-
        ing -- must look on the handiwork of Judge Anna Diggs Taylor 
        in the NSA case in amazement. It is a pathetic piece of work. 
        If it had been submitted by a student in my second year legal 
        writing class at the University of St. Thomas Law School, it 
        would have earned a failing grade.

        On the issue of the legality of warrantless interception of enemy 
        communications, for example, it is entirely conclusory. It does not 
        address precedent. It assumes its conclusion, essentially framing 
        the issue as whether the president can break the law. It simply 
        asserts that the NSA eavesdropping program is "obviously in 
        violation of the Fourth Amendment" -- apparently because it is 
        warrantless. (Wrong.) She sagely observes that the "President of 
        the United States is himself created by that same Constitution" -- 
        you know, the one with the Fourth Amendment that she apparently 
        thinks requires warrants in all cases.

        Judge Taylor is like the big bad wolf in the fairly tale. She huffs and 
        she puffs. I think she's facing the brick house that can't be blown 
        down -- she at least can't blow it down -- but the end of this unedi-
        fying fairy tale has yet to be written by a higher and presumably 
        more competent authority.

Let's hope so!

 Bible Reading:  Habakkuk 1:1-2:1

I find the book of Habakkuk to be the heart-felt theme of those who love God at this time - and in fact through much of history.  I look at our nation and wonder how much longer God will tolerate our wickedness, as people reject Him publicly and turn to open sin.  What we watch (or avoid, in many cases) on TV and at the movies, who we allow to educate our children, how many people engage in fornication (and our reluctance to even call it what it is) and adultery and homosexuality, the way we tolerate and even celebrate evil - I find myself joining the prophet's cry, "How long, O Lord?" " The law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails."

But when I look around me and see whom God appears to be preparing to judge our nation, even more questions arise, just as they did for Habakkuk.  How can God use the wicked to judge those more righteous than themselves?  How can He choose, as He seems to be, the Muslim extremists - cruel, vicious, legalistic - to judge the modern nations?  And perhaps He won't - but at this point in history it certainly appears possible.  Thus, as the prophet Habakkuk does, I find myself with more questions than answers about God's ways. 

Father, help me to "stand at my watch," to "look to see what He will say to me," and to trust You to do what is right, and what will glorify Yourself.  Give me Your peace, and help me trust You.

Bible Reading:  Psalsm 148-150
 
Why is it that praising God seems so easy in church on Sunday morning, and so hard in the hustle and bustle of everyday life?  I get so caught up in the daily struggle of living, and I tend to be driven so much by my emotions, that all too often praise is the farthest thing from my mind.  I am put to shame by people like Corrie Ten Boom and Richard Wurmbrand, who praised God even in the midst of persecution, because I often have a hard time praising Him in my very comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. 

It is the Holy Spirit who enables us to praise God when our emotions don't feel like it.  It is He who keeps our focus on the right things, and who takes our anxiety and gives us peace.  And without His peace, praise is difficult.  An anxious, striving heart has great difficulty with praise, while a heart at peace can praise even when circumstances look hopeless.

Father, take my fears and anxieties, and give me Your peace.  Still my stressed-out heart, and fill me with Your praise.  Let my words and thoughts give You the glory.