The controversial pamphlets contained comments such as, “Throughout history individuals have tried many ways to gain or earn eternal life, but every attempt has been unsuccessful.” There were Bible verses, such as, “Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Titus 3:5a.”

What happened next has reopened a painful debate about so-called “no go zones,” areas that may as well be off limits to British citizens who do not heed Islamic laws.

According to a statement by the Rev. Arthur Cunningham, the “police community support officer” told him “you’re not allowed to preach … here. This is a Muslim area. He said, ‘You know, you guys are committing a hate crime here with what you’re doing. I’m going to have to call you in and take you in.’ Then he took his radio and he said something like, ‘There’s a hate crime in progress here. I need assistance.’ “

This occurred three months ago, but legal actions by Cunningham and the Rev. Joseph Abraham have created a wave of new coverage. Both men carry American passports, although Abraham was born a Muslim in Egypt and then converted to Christianity.

While declining to discuss details, West Midlands Police officials have released statements saying their investigation found that the officer acted “with the best of intentions” and that “the PCSO has been offered guidance about what constitutes a hate crime and advice on communication style.”

Another statement: “We would like to assure all communities that there are not any ‘no go’ areas in the West Midlands Police area and we will defend the rights of the individual to freedom of expression and religious faiths.”

The “no go zone” debate began in earnest when Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, who was raised in Pakistan in a family with Christian and Muslim roots, expressed fears that England is splintering into segregated communities of citizens living “parallel lives.”

“It is critically important to all that the freedom to discuss freely and perhaps to have our views changed, whether in politics, religion or science, be encouraged and not diminished,” wrote Nazir-Ali, in a newspaper essay that led to death threats against him.

Christianity and Islam are both evangelistic faiths, which creates sparks when their traditional, growing forms collide. However, Christian evangelism is banned in many Muslim lands and some Christian converts have faced death sentences as apostates.

In the Alum Rock case, the missionaries freely admit they were seeking converts. Abraham and Cunningham insist that they were told they would be physically attacked if they dared to return.

“The actions and words used by the officers were intimidating and were calculated to warn and-or frighten our clients and to have the effect of deterring our clients from lawfully expressing their opinions and manifesting their beliefs and to have a chilling effect on the exercise by them of their right to manifest their beliefs,” according to a document prepared for police by activists at the Christian Institute. “Our clients were left with the understanding that they could not express their religious beliefs in Alum Rock Road without committing a hate crime.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has reported that the officer involved in this incident is active in the local branch of the National Association of Muslim Police. The West Midlands police force also made recent headlines when it accused a BBC Dispatches program — entitled “Undercover Mosques” — of distorting Muslim statements about terrorism.

All of this has led to heightened tensions about how to balance Muslim concerns with British laws.

“Freedom is not, of course, absolute. It is only possible in the context of the Common Good, where the freedom of each has to be exercised with respect for the freedom of all,” according to a new essay by Nazir-Ali, in Standpoint magazine.

“Freedom of belief, of expression, and the freedom to change one’s belief are, however, vitally important for a free society, and the onus must be on those who wish to restrict these in any way to show why this is necessary. Nor can we say that such freedoms apply in some parts of the country and of the world and not in others.”

Send article as PDF to

As a rule, religious words are safer than religious actions.

Consider these numbers from a new Ellison Research study that shows surprising support — on the left and right, among believers and skeptics — for freedom of expression when it comes to words and symbols.

An overwhelming 90 percent of adults agreed that faith groups should be allowed to rent public property, such as a school gyms, if laws gave non-religious groups the same right. Asked about allowing a moment of silence in public schools, 89 percent said that was fine. Another 88 percent said teachers should have the right to wear jewelry, such as a cross or a Star of David, in public-school classes.

“There is a lot of unity out there about these kinds of issues,” said Ron Sellers, president of the research firm in Phoenix. “But the specifics do matter. Wearing a cross on your lapel is not the same thing as showing up a school wearing a t-shirt with a big cross on it and the words, ‘Believe in Jesus or you’re going to hell.’

“There’s no way to say that approving one thing is the same as approving another, even though the same principle is at stake.”

The key is that religion is bad if it makes large numbers of people uncomfortable.

For example, 83 percent of the survey participants said it should be legal to put nativity scenes on public property, such as city hall lawns, and 79 percent supported the posting of the Ten Commandments in court buildings. But that number fell to 60 percent when they were asked about Muslim displays on public property during Ramadan.

This study asked another crucial question linked to a religious liberty issue that is affecting a wide variety of faith groups, especially in higher education.

The researchers asked if respondents agreed that it “should be legal for a religious club in a high school or university to determine for itself who can be in their membership, even if certain types of people are excluded.” The result was a stark divide, with only 52 percent agreeing that religious groups should be able to enforce their own doctrines among their own members.

“People might respond differently if you asked the same question, but were more specific,” said Sellers. “I think most Americans believe that a Jewish student union should have the right to say, ‘No, you’re Muslim. You cannot join our group.’ But what if it’s a conservative Christian group that says, ‘No, you cannot join our group because you’re gay’? American aren’t sure what they think about that, right now.”

The trend is clear. Vague talk is safer than clear action. Personal beliefs are good, but not if these doctrines lead to actions that indicate that some beliefs are right and others wrong.

Seeking is good, but finding is bad.

Judging is even worse.

For example, a new survey by the Southern Baptist Convention’s LifeWay Research team found that 72 percent of “unchurched” Americans who rarely if ever attend worship services believe that “God, a higher or supreme being, actually exists.” However, 61 percent agreed or strongly agreed that the God of the Bible is “no different from the gods or spiritual beings depicted by world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.”

The researchers found that 78 percent of the respondents claimed that they would be “willing to listen” if a Christian wanted to share talk about their beliefs. Then again, 44 percent agreed that “Christians get on my nerves.”

“There is a sense in our culture that is acceptable to believe in anything spiritual, as long as it makes you a better person and helps you find peace,” said Ed Stetzer, leader of the LifeWay Research team. “One’s faith only becomes a problem when that belief actually makes claims that contradicts the faith of others.”

In an age of “I’m OK, You’re OK” spirituality, he added, “American spirituality has glorified ‘searching’ for spiritual meaning, but de-emphasized ‘finding.’ In other words, it is good to be looking for spirituality, but it is intolerant to actually believe you have found a right faith. … Intolerance is defined to mean actually believing that your faith is the correct one.”

Send article as PDF to

The Rev. Rick “Purpose Driven Life” Warren is a Baptist and so is the Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Rev. Bob Jones III of Greenville, S.C., is a Baptist and so is the Rev. Al Sharpton, Jr., of New York. The Rev. Bill Moyers is a Baptist, or used to be, and that’s also true for the Rev. Pat Robertson.

There are all kinds of Baptists, so saying people are “Baptists” may do little to clarify what they actually believe.

But two things are clear. The first is that the Rev. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., is a Baptist. The second is that millions of other Baptists wish Phelps and his infamous flock would stop calling themselves “Baptists.”

“It does make you cringe when you read about Phelps and Westboro, because you rarely see anyone stress that these people have no connections to Southern Baptists or to American Baptists or to anybody else,” said Greg Warner, editor of the Associated Baptist Press, one of two news agencies that cover Baptist life.

“This is just some of the baggage that comes with being Baptist. It goes with the territory.”

Phelps and his followers make keep making headlines because of their protests at military funerals, featuring signs with shocking slogans — such as “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers.” The church has about 60 members, most of them related to Phelps, and teaches that God is punishing America because of this culture’s growing acceptance of homosexuality. A jury in Baltimore recently handed down a $10.9 million verdict against Westboro because of its ugly protests at the March 2006 funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder, who died in Iraq.

At its website — GodhatesAmerica.com — the church offers this history: “Established in 1955 by Pastor Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas still exists today as an Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church. … We adhere to the teachings of the Bible, preach against all form of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery, sodomy), and insist that the doctrines of grace be taught publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Although these doctrines are almost universally hated today, they were once loved and believed.”

The church does not, however, appear to be part of the National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. Then again, it isn’t linked to the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Churches, the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., the Conservative Baptist Association of America, the American Baptist Association (Landmark Baptists), the Regular Baptist Churches, Reformed Baptist Churches, Free Will Baptist Churches, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the National Baptist Evangelical Life and Soul Saving Assembly of the U.S.A., the Independent, Fundamental Baptist Churches or any other known Baptist group.

Obviously, it’s hard for Baptists to agree on a common definition of what “Baptist” means. One online definition states: “A member of an evangelical Protestant church of congregational polity, following the reformed tradition in worship and believing in individual freedom, in the separation of church and state, and in baptism of voluntary, conscious believers.”

However, various streams of Baptist life predate the birth of the modern “evangelical” movement. And would Baptists agree they are “reformed” churches or “Reformed,” as in rooted in Calvinist teachings? Do Baptists today share a common understanding of the “separation of church and state”? Of course not.

All Baptists would, however, stress a congregational approach to church government and the autonomy of each local congregation. This means that it’s all but impossible for any Baptist flock to tell another flock what to do — unless they’re part of a larger voluntarily association or convention.

“Just about anyone can get themselves ordained and then say that they’ve started a church,” said Will Hall, head of the 16.4-million-member Southern Baptist Convention’s official Baptist Press news agency.

But in the case of Westboro Baptist, he said, it isn’t even enough “to call them an independent Baptist church, because they’re not typical of the many independent Baptist churches and missionary Baptist churches out there across America. This is a tiny church that’s out there all by itself and that’s the way they want it.”

Send article as PDF to

A fundamentalist Baptist cut the liberal icon’s throat in broad daylight on a New York City street after the release of “Submission,” his movie with actress Susan Sarandon that attacked the Religious Right for oppressing women. As a final symbolic act the killer used his knife to pin an anti-abortion tract to Moore’s chest, with an explicit warning that Sarandon was next.

All of that is fiction, of course.

Still, it’s interesting to contemplate how the media would respond if a crime like this did occur. Would reporters rush to cover an address by Sarandon if she ventured into public to berate the fundamentalists? Would Hollywood find a way to honor her during the Academy Awards for her stand against religious tyranny and for artistic freedom?

Moore and Sarandon are alive and well. However, the Dutch feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali remains in hiding after the 2004 murder of her artistic partner, the brash and profane filmmaker Theo van Gogh. The duo’s “Submission” linked verses in the Koran with violence against women and then showed the holy words written on the skin of semi-naked actresses.

A Dutch-born Islamist decided to retaliate. Before killing van Gogh on a street in Amsterdam, Muhammad Bouyeri was known for translating a 14th century tract entitled ?The Obligation to Kill Anyone who Insults the Prophet.? He shot van Gogh 15 times and slashed his throat before impaling on the body a five-page letter threatening Hirsi Ali, who had been elected to the Dutch parliament a year earlier.

Hirsi Ali has continued her writing and political work as best she can. She also risked a recent public appearance in Berlin to rage against Muslims who have marched and rioted to protest those 12 Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad.

“I am here to defend the right to offend,” said Hirsi Ali, a native of Somalia who fled to the Netherlands as a refugee. “Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their readers the caricatures in the cartoon affair. These intellectuals live off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’ and ‘sensitivity.’

“Shame on those politicians who stated that publishing and re-publishing the drawings was ‘unnecessary,’ ‘insensitive,’ ‘disrespectful’ and ‘wrong.’ … Shame on those European companies in the Middle East that advertised ‘we are not Danish’ or ‘we don’t sell Danish products.” This is cowardice. Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after this, will they?”

For her Muslim critics, the Berlin speech merely confirmed that Hirsi Ali is a “loyal slave” of her new European masters,” according to Al-Jazeera commentator Ali Al-Hail, a media professor at the University of Qatar. As an apostate Muslim, she has been telling lies about Islam in exchange for a “fistful of Euros” so she can fill “a gap in her starving abdomen,” he said.

Nevertheless, it’s important to note that few Western liberals have rushed to defend or praise Hirsi Ali, he said, via email. Her press coverage has been thin.

“The American left has been so silent since the assassination of Theo Van Gogh,” said Al-Hail, who recently taught as a Fulbright scholar at Simpson College in Iowa. “I have also observed this silence. As to why? Probably, probably, the American left is sympathetic to Muslims over the current crises.”

Hirsi Ali is convinced that her usual allies are afraid. This crisis, she said, has underlined the “widespread fear among authors, filmmakers, cartoonists and journalists who wish to describe, analyze or criticize intolerant aspects of Islam. … It has also revealed the presence of a considerable minority in Europe who do not understand or will not accept the workings of liberal democracy.”

While it is wrong to stereotype Muslims, Hirsi Ali stressed that she believes the prophet Mohammad made mistakes — especially on women’s issues, gay rights, free speech and the separation of mosque and state.

Thus, she said, “I think it is right to make critical drawings and films of Muhammad. … I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission.”

Send article as PDF to

Other signs in London said: “Behead those who insult Islam,” “Europeans take a lesson from 9/11” and “Prepare for the REAL Holocaust.” The organizer of the Feb. 3 event told the BBC that he looked forward to the day when “the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street.”

But what stunned British writer Geoffrey Wheatcroft was something else he saw while blitzing through news reports about the waves of fury inspired by those 12 Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad.

“Not only did the police make no arrests” during the London demonstration, even though it “openly incited murder; they actually sheltered the fanatics,” he noted, in a Slate.com essay. “Two men who tried to stage a peaceable counterdemonstration were hustled away for questioning. A working-class Londoner … was told in violent language by a cop to get back in his van and go away.”

This raises a disturbing question: Have British citizens lost the ability to exercise their free speech rights in public defiance of demands by many Muslim clerics and politicians for limitations on the freedom of the press in the West?

It’s hard to answer this kind of question right now because a “moral climate change” has destroyed England’s certainty that some things are right and some things are wrong, said Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, in a speech last week in the House of Lords. Thus, civic leaders cannot agree on the meaning of words such as “freedom” and “tolerance” and religious faith is seen as a threat instead of a virtue.

“The 1960s and 1970s swept away the old moral certainties, and anyone who tries to reassert them risks being mocked as an ignoramus or scorned as a hypocrite. But since then we’ve learned that you can’t run the world as a hippy commune,” said Wright, a former Oxford don who also has served as Westminster Abbey’s canon theologian.

“Getting rid of the old moralities hasn’t made us happier or safer. … This uncertainty, my Lords, has produced our current nightmare, the invention of new quasi-moralities out of bits and pieces of moral rhetoric, the increasingly shrill and polymorphous language of ‘rights’, the glorification of victimhood which enables anyone with hurt feelings to claim moral high ground and the invention of various ‘identities’ which demand not only protection but immunity from critique.”

Instead of focusing on the cartoon crisis, Wright described other signs of legal and moral confusion in British life. Prime Minister Tony Blair, for example, sent painfully mixed signals after last summer’s suicide bombings. His government leaned one way when it tried to ban efforts to “glorify” terrorism. Then it leaned the other way with legislation that would ban the promotion of “religious hatred.”

Wright stressed that it will be dangerous to pass laws that attempt to replace, amend or edit religious doctrines that have shaped the lives of believers for centuries. But politicians seem determined to try.

Thus, Birmingham University forced the Evangelical Christian Union off campus and seized the group’s funds because it refused to amend its bylaws to allow non-Christians or atheists to become voting members.

Thus, Wright noted that police have shut down protests in Parliament Square against British policies in Iraq. Comedians — facing vague laws against hate speech — are suddenly afraid to joke about religion. And was there any justification for government investigations of the Anglican bishop of Chester and the chairman of the Muslim Council of Great Britain because they made statements critical of homosexuality?

Public officials, said the bishop, are trying to control the beliefs that are in people’s hearts and the thoughts that are in their heads. The tolerance police are becoming intolerant, which is a strange way to promote tolerance.

“People in my diocese have told me that they are now afraid to speak their minds in the pub on some major contemporary issues for fear of being reported, investigated, and perhaps charged,” said Wright. “I did not think I would see such a thing in this country in my lifetime. … The word for such a state of affairs is ‘tyranny’ — sudden moral climate change, enforced by thought police.”

Send article as PDF to

That was the good news. The bad news was that they wanted to talk about God, politics and homosexuality, although not necessarily in that order. It also didn’t help that the people they wanted to talk to were midshipmen on the U.S. Naval Academy campus — on a football-weekend Friday, no less.

“Free speech is free speech,” said White, who, before going public as a gay activist, was a ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other evangelical leaders. White is one of the founders of Soulforce, which is based in Lynchburg, Va.

“If people don’t want to talk, all they have to do is say so and walk away.”

Soulforce activists drifted around the academy campus in small clusters last weekend, their bright pastel t-shirts standing out among the blue uniforms and gray Chesapeake Bay mists. They attracted packs of journalists.

The 40 or so protestors — mostly college students from nearby — offered this greeting: “We’re here to talk about the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy. What do you think about that?”

Most midshipmen declined to talk. Capt. Helen Dunn, deputy superintendent at the academy, had issued this memo: “Members of this group may attempt to gain access to the Yard and approach you for discussions. We ask that you carry out your normal routine, … stay clear of our security personnel and the protestors, and to politely refer questions from media or the demonstrators to the Public Affairs Office.”

These are tense days at America’s military academies, which are emerging as bitter battlefields in church-state wars.

At the Air Force Academy, the hot issue is salvation. Evangelicals have been accused of going overboard as they interact with non-Christians and non-believers. Evangelical chaplains have even been attacked for delivering evangelistic messages in voluntary chapel services and other optional events. A circle of conservative lawmakers recently wrote to President Bush urging him to issue an executive order guaranteeing the free-speech rights of chaplains.

Right now, the hot issue at the Naval Academy is sexuality. Activists are trying to break what they believe is a faith-based chokehold on military policies affecting the careers and relationships of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered persons.

At the Air Force Academy, it’s hard to speak up in favor of conservative religious doctrines.

At the Naval Academy, it’s hard to speak up in opposition to them.

In both cases, believers — on left and right — are trying to proclaim what they believe is true. They are trying to change hearts and minds through the power of words and public witness. The problem, of course, is that one person?s free speech is another?s evangelism, public protest or, heaven forbid, even proselytizing.

At some point, said White, government officials must realize that people have a right to dialogue and debate. People have the right to talk and the right not to listen.

“It?s like all the people who want to censor television. You keep trying to tell people like that, ‘Don’t censor us. Just change the channel,’ ” he said, while greeting visitors outside the academy bookstore. “That?s what this is all about, too. We just want to talk to people and let them know what we think. What?s so scary about that?”

At first, Naval Academy officials threatened to have the demonstrators arrested if they came on campus. Then both sides agreed to a shaky compromise that allowed the activists the same rights as other visitors, other than the right to talk with midshipmen. Most members of the Soulforce team went right ahead and talked, said Reitan, leader of the group’s “Equality Ride” program.

In the months ahead, Soulforce teams will be traveling to a dozen or more other campuses — including the other military academies and an array of conservative religious colleges and universities from coast to coast.

“Hopefully, people at the campuses we stop at in the future will be willing to set up forums and create other kinds of settings in which we can discuss these issues in a more adult, academic manner,” said Reitan. “But we have decided that we’re not going to let our free speech to be edited during any of our future stops.”

Send article as PDF to

Then again, these products do not include pronouncements on sin, sex, money, marriage, heaven, hell and a host of spiritual issues — including the belief that salvation comes through faith in a messiah named Jesus.

So International Bible Society leaders were not surprised that some people were upset by their decision to distribute 91,000 New Testaments in a pre-Christmas edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette. They were surprised when the project made national headlines, inspiring debate about free speech, religious tolerance and the role of newspapers in the marketplace of ideas.

“Whenever we try to put the word of God into people’s hands there are going to be negative reactions. We have to accept that as a given,” said Bob Jackson, head of this national project. “You’re going to hear from atheists and agnostics. You’re going to hear from people in other faiths and Christians who disagree with what you’re doing. … We know that this stirs up emotions that you just don’t see when you are giving away packets of oatmeal.”

Right now, the Colorado Springs-based Bible society is evaluating the results of this New Testament project, which was funded by 125 nearby churches, businesses and evangelical ministries, such as Focus on the Family and Youth for Christ. Jackson said it cost $125,000 to print and distribute the 200-page volume, with its cover photo of Pikes Peak and testimonies by local believers.

Some Jewish and Muslim readers protested, arguing that the “Our City” title implied that Colorado Springs was an all-Christian community. Other critics said it was wrong for a mainstream newspaper — which was paid its standard fee for such an insert — to distribute material that was unapologetically evangelistic.

After all, the back cover said: “The heart and soul of the Bible is its account of God’s intention to bring all things back to Himself. That includes this great place. And that includes you. This New Testament is being given to you to help you find your place in this drama of restoration.”

The New York Times reported that the Gazette received 195 positive reactions and 69 negative, with five readers canceling their subscriptions.

While declining to discuss the future, Jackson said he has received calls from supporters for possible efforts to distribute customized New Testaments in the mainstream newspapers in at least 20 U.S. cities. He would not confirm or deny press reports about Denver, Nashville, Seattle and Santa Rosa, Calif.

Meanwhile, the International Bible Society has been involved in another tussle in the mass-media marketplace — Rolling Stone’s refusal to advertise its new youth-oriented Today’s New International Version of the Bible. While Modern Bride, The Onion, MTV and some other outlets cooperated, Rolling Stone cited an unwritten policy against religious messages in ads.

While avoiding obvious God-talk, the Zondervan ad did carry this blunt slogan: “Timeless truth; Today’s language.”

Rolling Stone balked and then, this week, quietly relented.

The bottom line, said Jackson, is that it’s hard for religious organizations to take their messages into the public square without stepping on some toes.

The Bible society freely admits that its goal is to get New Testaments into the hands of people who are not already Christian believers. The goal is to reach “seekers” or even active opponents of the faith, said Jackson. Some may decide to read some of it, simply to “see what all of the fuss is about.” Others may throw it in a drawer and then, weeks or months later, pull it out in the midst of some personal trial.

This is the hard truth. From the “Our City” team’s evangelical perspective, the people who need to be reached are almost certainly the same people who are most likely to be offended.

“We really believe that we are trying to share the powerful word of God. We believe it can change lives,” he said. “So we believe that we’re doing what God has commanded us to do. We can’t stop trying, because we sincerely believe that lives will be changed — even among those who oppose us. You just can’t reach the searchers without offending people.”

Send article as PDF to

The hall was full of unfamiliar students wanting to become members. Most were carrying Bibles with markers in the first chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. They also had copies of the campus policy forbidding discrimination on the basis of “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital or veteran status.”

Truth is, this scene hasn’t happened at Rutgers or anywhere else — so far.

What if it did?

What if conservative Christians tried to rush a gay-rights group and elect new leaders? What if, when told they couldn’t join because they rejected its core beliefs, evangelicals cited cases in which Christian groups were punished for refusing leadership roles to homosexuals? What if, when jeered by angry homosexuals, evangelicals called this verbal violence rooted in religious bigotry and, thus, harassment?

“No, no, no. I have never heard of a case in which conservative Catholics, Protestants or Jews tried to turn the tables in this fashion,” said historian Alan Charles Kors, president of the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

“That would never happen. There is an inherent meekness … among students of faith on all these campuses. It’s so ironic that people call them intolerant and offensive. Most of these religious students are among the last people who would ever go where they are not wanted. All they want is to be free to express their beliefs.”

But there have been a growing number of cases in which traditional religious groups have been attacked because their “intolerant” beliefs and policies offend modern academia. Almost all of these cases are collisions between ancient moral doctrines and campus policies that defend and promote the Sexual Revolution.

The bottom line, according to recent FIRE legal guides, is that almost all campus policies that inhibit religious practices also inhibit the constitutional rights of free speech, association and assembly. Public colleges and universities are not supposed to make doctrinal decisions that deny privileges to some religious groups that are then extended to other secular or religious groups.

Yet that is what is happening.

“Religious liberty is now center stage in the battle for freedom on campus,” according to David French, a Harvard Law School graduate who wrote the manual covering disputes over faith issues. “Religious students are particularly convenient targets. After all, they think and behave in ways that many other students don’t understand; they tend to be small minorities on most campuses; and — by religious conviction — they often resist even the most heavy-handed repression.”

For all of their talk about “diversity” and “tolerance,” French is convinced many academic leaders think that “the fewer ‘fanatics’ — of the ‘wrong’ kind — the better.”

While these campus disputes are often described in terms of “left” and “right,” the FIRE project (www.thefireguides.org) has been endorsed by a diverse coalition of activists ranging from Edwin Meese III, attorney general in the Reagan administration, to American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen.

The key is that academic leaders must be honest, said French. Leaders at state schools are quickly learning that their work is covered by explicit laws that ban any “viewpoint discrimination” that blesses some believers and curses others. Religious schools, meanwhile, are allowed to require particular beliefs and practices — mandatory chapel, moral codes, doctrinal statements for faculty — if these rules are clearly stated in writing.

Right now, the toughest battles are at some of America’s most prestigious private colleges and universities. These secular schools once encouraged fierce debates and proudly tolerated dissent. But now, it seems that some worldviews are created more equal than others.

Many religious believers do not discover this reality until they arrive on campus and receive copies of the all-powerful student handbook.

“Students must be told the truth,” said French. “They should not be duped into believing that they have enrolled in a school that respects their beliefs and their freedom to express viewpoints that are out of the so-called mainstream. These secular schools must be more honest in their recruiting materials and catalogues. This is a truth in advertising issue.”

Send article as PDF to

Waves of Operation Rescue activists were doing sit-ins at abortion facilities, often handcuffing themselves to the doors while others collapsed nearby chanting, singing, praying and reading scripture. Then police would drag everyone off to jail. This cycle of civil disobedience kept repeating itself at other clinics, in other towns, in other states.

“I remember thinking, ‘They’re all nut cases,’ ” said Forney. “Those tactics were so intimidating to me as a woman and, especially, as a woman who had had an abortion. … I wanted to stay as far away from that extreme anti-abortion stuff as I possibly could. It was all dangerous, as far as I was concerned.”

Then her spiritual walls began to collapse. She had a daughter, which reminded her again of the daughter lost in her 1976 abortion. Eventually Forney had a soul-shaking experience of grief, reconciliation and healing. By the late ’90s she was a leader in the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life. But she still could not embrace the tactics of the Operation Rescue era.

Nevertheless, Forney was one of many who cheered after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision that the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act could not be used against groups that protest at abortion facilities. While the cases — Scheidler v. NOW and Operation Rescue v. NOW — stirred up the usual combatants, the anti-abortion coalition also drew wide legal support from other activists who saw the importance of this legal precedent for all forms of protest. Among those showing support were People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Greenpeace, the Seamless Garment Network, Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty and Pax Christi USA. Actor Martin Sheen and the activist priest Daniel Berrigan even signed on.

This decision may have closed the door on an era in which anyone who wanted to oppose abortion had to worry about being associated with illegal forms of protest.

Finally, an intimidating link to the past is gone, said Forney. The emphasis now is on finding ways to reach women before and after their abortions. In January, she helped lead a “Silent No More” campaign in 46 states built on the testimonies of women who have had abortions. They held quiet demonstrations at state capitols and other public places, holding black-and-white “I regret my abortion” signs.

“After 30 years, we have to try to teach our choir a new song,” she said. “We can’t keep using the same pro-life words and images that we’ve always used. We have to talk to the women and try to see things through their eyes. We have to let women know that they deserve something better than abortion.”

Meanwhile, there are still legal issues to be resolved about the legal rights of those who still want to pray, preach and protest on public sidewalks, said Joe Scheidler, the activist whose Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League was caught up in the Operation Rescue-era legal wars.

After all, the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act calls for sanctions against those who conduct “threatening” protests in or near the “safety zones” around abortion clinics. And after this Supreme Court decision, NOW President Kim Gandy vowed to see to it that “religious and political extremists do not resume their reign of terror at women’s clinics. We are looking at every avenue, including the U.S.A. Patriot Act, in order to protect women, doctors and clinic staff from these ideological terrorists.”

No one expects conflicts to cease near abortion facilities, said Scheidler. But the momentum is behind those willing to find ways to do sidewalk counseling, hold vigils and to distribute information — even coupons for free ultrasound tests — without inspiring fear or lawsuits.

Nevertheless, one person’s free speech may be another’s harassment.

“I don’t know how often we’ve been outside Planned Parenthood saying the Rosary and then suddenly four squad cars roll up,” said Scheidler. “The cops say, ‘We got a call saying you have weapons.’ So we hold up our Rosary beads. … For some people, saying the Rosary can be a form of intimidation.”

Send article as PDF to

But this was not the usual mosh scene. This was a Rock For Life concert.

“It seems too easy unwanted baby, it could just be thrown away,” chanted Mike Middleton of a Wisconsin band called Hangnail. “A life so helpless counted as useless, another victim of mankind. … Did you even have a name or could you’ve been like me the same? I was wondering, do they think of you or try to keep you from their minds.”

Not far from the stage was a table lined with stacks of black sweatshirts and T-shirts that are guaranteed to stand out among the Tommy Hilfiger and Abercrombie & Fitch clones in school hallways. The slogans are printed in large white letters and are easy to read, even from a distance.

Some people like that. Some people don’t.

“ABORTION IS HOMICIDE,” says one sweatshirt. “ABORTION IS MEAN,” says another. On the back is a pledge that proclaims: “You will not silence my message. You will not mock my God. You will stop killing my generation.” The Rock For Life logo is a cartoon image of an unborn child playing an electric guitar.

The American Life League reported selling 15,000 of the shirts at rallies last summer and at least another 500 during concerts supporting the annual March For Life on Tuesday, the 29th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

These shirts will be coming soon to a public school near you, if Rock For Life has its way.

“People will probably think that we’re weird or something, but we’re used to that,” said 16-year-old Katie Hammond of Frederick (MD) High School, not far outside the Washington beltway. “Sometimes we end up in arguments at lunch about stuff like this. People keep saying, ‘It’s wrong to believe what you believe’ and blah, blah, blah. Maybe it’ll be OK.”

Then again, there’s always a chance someone will freak out and call a counselor. Rock For Life has received a dozen or more complaints about students being sent home for wearing the “ABORTION IS HOMICIDE” shirt. Few have dared to fight these bans. These are tense times on the free-speech front.

“I know some of the schools have a zero-tolerance policy on language about death, so people are saying that the word ‘homicide’ violates that,” said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition. “But that just doesn’t wash, since you have all kinds of kids walking the halls in T-shirts for rock groups like Slayer, Megadeth and who knows what all. There was even an anti-gun campaign a few years ago with the slogan, ‘Stop the killing.’ I didn’t hear anything about schools banning those shirts.

“So from my point of view, this isn’t about the word ‘homicide.’ What this is about is the word ‘abortion.’ “

Then there is that dangerous word “God.”

In Malone, N.Y., a school attorney claimed the sweatshirt pledge proved that “the student’s objective is to proselytize.” But such a ban would appear to clash with 1999 Clinton White House guidelines that were backed by a broad coalition ranging from the National Association of Evangelicals to the American Civil Liberties Union. That letter said: “Schools may not single out religious attire in general, or attire of a particular religion, for prohibition or regulation.”

Apparently, many Americas are tense and hypersensitive right now about anything that has to do with strong faith or claims of religious truth, said Erik Whittington of Rock For Life. Thus, some want to nip conflict in the bud, even if that means undercutting free speech.

“We had our largest cluster of complaints about the sweatshirts right after Sept. 11 — just a few days or a week after that,” he said, moments before one of the Capitol Hill concerts. “There has to be a connection. … I think the logic goes like this: pro-life equals right wing, Christian, fanatic, the enemy. Some people think we’re the American Taliban.”

Send article as PDF to