Blog from the Capital

SCOTUSblog relays the latest in San Diego's 17-year odyssey to keep a war memorial cross on public land. The mounument has been ordered removed by a federal judge, a decision that was left standing by the 9th Circuit.

The history of the legal dispute has grown very complex, so that issues under Calforrnia law are now becoming mixed with claims under the Supremacy Clause of the federal Constitution because Congress has voted to have a war memorial on the site and has agreed to let the federal government accept a donation of the site.
...
The city and the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial on Thursday filed requests for a stay of the judge's latest order (applications 05-A-1233 and 05-A-1234), while the city appeals to the Ninth Circuit and while a state appeals court is considering an appeal over the legality of a voter-approved referendum to transfer the cross site to the federal government as a national war memorial.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you're not already reading Mainstream Baptist, this was a good week to start. Bruce has been on fire, with passionate posts that especially caught my eye:"On Religion Involvement in Politics" and "The Founding Fathers and Baptists."

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A new piece in Charlottsville, VA's weekly paper, The Hook, asks this question: "Whose Freedoms Are We Fighting For?"

Whatever one's opinion might be about the Wiccan faith, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution provides for religious freedom for all individuals of all faiths-- whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, or any other.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week, both major political parties saw appeals to faith, with reference to the relationship between church and state. House Republicans have offered their "American Values Agenda" which, as I noted before, contains the Public Expression of Religion Act, as well as the Pledge Protection Act, which thus far, still, has had trouble getting out of committee (a fact being both celebrated and bemoaned)

Also gaining blogosphere buzz (both positive and negative) was Democratic Senator Barack Obama's recent address about religion and the political sphere, at Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. He had this to say about those who would diminish the separation of church and state:

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Charleston Gazette reports on a lawsuit brought against Bridgeport High School over a portrait of Jesus outside the principal's office.

Warner Sallman’s “Head of Christ” has hung in the school for at least 30 years, according to Harrison County schools Superintendent Carl Friebel, who is named in the suit along with the school’s principal, Lindy Bennett, and county school board members.

The suit alleges the officials are violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by forcing a Christian message on students.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A new Gallup poll says 48% of Americans now say "no," down from 60% in 1999, according to a Religion News Service report.

The change appears to be a "fairly recent phenomenon," according the Gallup News Service. In September 2005, half of Americans said the government should promote "traditional values" and 47 percent said it should not favor any values.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The University of California's motion to dismiss the case brought by students of Calvary Chapel Christian School was heard on Tuesday. The suit alleges that the University system discriminates against students of religious schools in its admission practices. Judge Otero seems to be leaning toward allowing the suit to move ahead, according to this article in the Southern California Press-Enterprise.

A ruling in this case could affect other public university admissions policies because the 10-campus UC system is considered a flagship system nationwide, experts have said.

Christian-education advocates have said a defeat for their side could undermine the ability of Christian schools to teach their beliefs because students would have less access to a UC education.

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Associated Press reports that the "Pledge Protection Act", which would keep federal courts from hearing cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, was defeated in a 15-15 tie in the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. With several members absent for that vote, Chairman Sensenbrenner promises to bring it up again today.

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

With a countdown zeroing on August 1, the date by which the Mt. Soledad, CA cross must be removed according to a court order, Congress and the White House are looking for ways to get involved. The cross, a war memorial that has been the subject of legal wrangling for almost 20 years, would be seized as federal property under a plan proposed by Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and other members of the California House delegation.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, and newly elected Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad, are co-sponsors of the legislation, which was introduced Monday night, 36 days before the city faces fines of $5,000 a day if officials refuse to comply with a federal judge's order to move the cross.

“Congressional action is now necessary because the city of San Diego is under a district court order to remove the memorial cross from city property by Aug. 1, 2006,” according to the bill.

Q Tony, two questions. In accordance with your request yesterday, I'm asking again what the President is planning to do to stop the judge-ordered destruction by August the 1st of the 46-foot cross in San Diego that is a memorial to our nation's war dead?

MR. SNOW: All right, we attached this as an asterisk yesterday, Lester, but I'll repeat it. Right now, the President and the administration are actively reviewing both administrative and legislative options for preserving that veterans war memorial.

Posted by Don Byrd at 05:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's roundup I pointed to a Reuters story about the Malaysian woman whose fate is in the hands of that country's federal court after she converted from Islam to Christianity and was arrested by the state Islamic department.

The Becket Fund has filed a brief on her behalf (via Where is Angela?)

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to a Fox News report today, the GOP plan for an "American Values Agenda" includes a vote on the Public Expression of Religion Act in advance of the mid-term elections. I posted yesterday about the subcommittee hearing for this bill, which would eliminate damages and attorney's fees in lawsuits targeting state and local governments involving violations of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Lots of interesting tidbits out there today--

Associated Baptist Press details the important Walter Shurden speech given to BJC supporters at a luncheon during the recent Cooperative Baptist Fellowship meeting in Atlanta.

And at the Seventh-Day Adventists meeting, "Liberty" magazine editor Lincoln Steed spoke of the dangers of failing to be vigilant about religious liberty.

In the Lexington Herald-Leader, a substantial article about the controversy surrounding the state's funding of a pharmacy school in a Baptist college.

The Washington Post reports that city officials have re-thought their objection to a Ten Commandments display across from the Supreme Court building and are no longer requesting its removal.

In international news, a report on Itay's "Aid to the Church in Need" conference begins this way: "Guaranteeing religious freedom is a condition for the growth of democracy and economic development." And in the Boston Globe, a Reuters story outlines the trials of a Malaysian woman who dared convert from Islam to Christianity.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

HR 2679 would apply to any lawsuit regarding the establishment of religion by state or local government, in violation of the Constitution--from forced school prayer to the public funding of religion. The law, now in committee, would keep plaintiffs in such cases from seeking damages or attorney's fees if they win.

Why would Congress consider putting that kind of limit on citizens who have been injured by the government in this way? Over the weekend, I watched the webcast of Thursday's House Constitution Subcommittee hearing on the bill to find out. (I know I know, it's a sad way to spend the weekend what can I say...). The panel consisted of 3 in support of the bill and 1 against, American Jewish Congress counsel Marc Stern.

I've picked out the choice quotes from participants and posted them below, but the essential message is this: PERA would embolden governments to err on the side of establishing religion; it would increase the financial burden on those whose rights have been violated should they decide to seek their day in court; and it could have a severe disincentive effect, reflected in an exchange between Mr. Stern and committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) [My transcription]

Nadler: Under this bill, what would stop a recalcitrant governing authority in a local government from violating a federal court order?

Stern: Nothing….It is an open invitation for people to defy the Constitution in the interest of political convenience at their will.

Chairman Steve Chabot (R-OH) offers this rationale in his opening statement:

[T]he threat of litigation against state and local officials alleging that they have violated the Establishment Clause often forces states and localities to cave to demands to remove even the smallest religious references on public property. Most localities do not have the money to pay not only their own, but also the plaintiff’s, attorney’s fees if they receive an adverse judgment.

And, Establishment Clause case law is so confusing and the outcome in these cases so unpredictable that it is virtually impossible for a locality to foresee the outcome in any given case.

We recognize that the independent judiciary is the bulwark of our liberties, allowing people to go to court and force the government to respect their rights. We recognize this by allowing them to seek damages where the government has done damage. We recognize this by ensuring-just as we have done with the Voting Rights Act—that people who can prove their rights have been violated can get attorney’s fees paid, so people with valid claims will be able to go to court, and not be damaged by huge attorney’s fees….The Chairman talks about localities being hurt by attorney’s fees. They only get hurt by attorney’s fees if they are judged wrong by the courts—if they damaged individual rights of somebody. And it’s better that the government be damaged by attorney’s fees when the government has violated someone’s rights than that the victim of that deprivation of rights, the victim of unconstitutional practices, be damaged.

If the Justices of the United States Supreme Court are conflicted over the meaning of the Establishment Clause – and they are—and if professors and judges in lower courts are conflicted—and they are—then it is particularly inappropriate to punish governmet officials with the threat of damages and attorney fees for a mere misstep in this constitutional minefield.

This act leaves citizens worse off the inmates in prison. Inmates get capped attorney’s fees. Here, a proven violation of the Establishment Clause resuts in no attorney’s fees. Secondly, it’s simply not true that the Establishment Clause is uniquely difficult. . . . It’s clear, from the testimony of my colleagues on the panel, that the chief beef here is not with the attorney’s fee statute, but with the substance of constitutional law, and that’s plainly beyond this committee’s competence.
…
Attorney’s fees can be abused. They also make possible and vindicate constitutional rights that otherwise would go un-vindicated. If you want to deal with abuse, then deal with abuse. This bill doesn’t deal with abuse. It deals with one type of rights that the committee happens to disfavor. It’s not a permissible basis for legislation.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In an update to the story from earlier this week, in which the 9th Circuit rejected an appeal that would have left the Mt. Soledad memorial cross on public land, the San Diego mayor - who has vowed to follow the court order if no appellate relief is granted - announced his intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

The latest maneuver continues the 17-year saga over the cross, which Philip Paulson, an atheist Vietnam veteran, sued to have removed in 1989. The city has fought to keep the cross where it is and has continually lost in court, racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills.
...
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it probably would order a temporary suspension of Thompson's order, [city attorney Michael] Aguirre said.

That also would keep alive a separate appeal in state courts.

In that case, Paulson sued the city over a July 2005 vote in which 76 percent of voters backed keeping the cross in place by donating the land beneath it to the federal government.

San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett found the vote and the ordinance that made it possible was unconstitutional.

Posted by Don Byrd at 04:21 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Media Transparency has an article online by Bill Berkowitz exploring the tenure of Jim Towey as head of the Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office in the White House. Included are quotes from Baptist Joint Committee counsel Holly Hollman on the strained relationship between Towey and religious groups (like the BJC) that support a strong separation between church and state.

"On several occasions, the BJC voiced its concerns to him and sought ways to work together more constructively," Hollman said.

"Unfortunately, Towey never seemed to recognize that people of faith criticized the initiative precisely because of their faith. The initiative diminishes the role of religion by threatening the independence of houses of worship, funding religious discrimination and blurring the line between church and state that protects religious freedom."

Posted by Don Byrd at 04:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I missed this last week. In the New York Sun, American Jewish Congress counsel Marc Stern had this editorial, adding to the conversation regarding same-sex marriage and its potential impact on religious liberty.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mount Soledad, California--just outside San Diego--has been home to a public cross in memory of Korean War veterans since the 1950s. In 1989, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the display began a long chain of legal battles and maneuvers culminating in a May order by a Federal Court that the monument be removed by Aug 2 on penalty of daily fines.

Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to rescind that order, and the Mayor smartly announced his decision to comply rather than risk the public budget.

“I have made clear that I intend to pursue all options to preserve the integrity of the monument, including conferring with members of our congressional delegation and the White House regarding this issue,” he said. “I intend to continue doing so. However, I have no intention of violating Judge Thompson's order if a resolution cannot be reached by Aug. 1.

“We are a society of laws and we must respect the integrity of a court's decision.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 05:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

That's my caveat response to Kathryn Lopez's piece in the conservative National Review on "Religious Liberty in the Classroom", imploring us to let Catholic schools be Catholic.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A Florida inmate is suing the State for failing to accommodate his religious needs as an Orthodox Jew.

As a member of a more traditional stream of Judaism, [Ross] Lawson is supposed to eat kosher food and, at certain times, refrain from shaving or cutting his hair.

But state prison authorities have refused to accommodate him, citing, among other things, security risks inherent in beards and the high cost of bringing in prepackaged meals.
...
''Lawson sincerely believes that he is required to obey all 613 commandments encompassed with the holy Torah,'' said Justin Uhlemann, a Miami attorney representing the inmate, who is from Fort Lauderdale.

Lawson's fight comes a year after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law requiring state prisons to accommodate the religious affiliations of inmates. It's also close to three years since the state granted Allen Cotton, a convicted killer from Broward, access to kosher meals. Cotton, too, had sued the state.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last month, a 3rd Circuit panel allowed an employment discrimination lawsuit to proceed against Catholic run Gannon University, despite the plaintiff working in a religious capacity as chaplain. The controversial ruling broke with the traditionally wide deference given to the ministerial exception. But the author of the decision died soon after writing it, and one other panel member has since developed reasons for recusal. And so, the decision has been vacated, with a new panel assigned to re-hear.

The decision to vacate can be read here. Via How Appealing.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last week I posted about the telling, predictable dilemma that accompanies attempts to post the Ten Commandments in public buildings. The Louisiana legislature was reduced to a bizarre, Alice-in-Wonderland editing session to try and make the specific Commandment wording acceptable. Finally, the bill has passed and been sent to the Governor. How did they resolve the dispute? By giving up, and pretending the problem doesn't exist. Assuming Governor Blanco signs the legislation, it will move on to become someone else's problem.

The Legislature bowed out of the debate over what version of the Ten Commandments should be used in displays at government buildings.

Instead, the proposed law sent to Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Monday removed the specific commandants from the bill and referred instead to the wording “as extracted from the Bible.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In a column today, Rick Santorum explains his interest in creating today's Religious Freedom Day on Capitol Hill (which I wrote about in a post yesterday).

Because freedom of religion embodies the freedoms of conscience, thought, and action, it is the lodestar of all other freedoms. Thus, a discussion of its status, challenges, and protection is not merely an event we accommodate, but a discussion we welcome and embrace.

Because people everywhere desire to express their faith—or lack of faith—in a manner of their choosing, I have invited individuals and representatives from myriad faith traditions and welcome their perspectives, suggestions, and contributions.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The South Carolina legislature has passed, and the governor has signed, the Released Time Credit Act. The bill would allow school credit for courses in religion taken off campus. This will increase the number of enrollees, who now have incentive to sign up. And it follows that more church organizations will seek to offer courses for released time credit.

Students can take part in the Released Time programs because of a 1952 court ruling, saying it is constitutional for students to leave campus to take part in religious education courses.

But because of scheduling conflicts and graduation requirements, religious organizations have had smaller-than-expected participation from high school students.
...
Now with the Credit Act signed, Released Time groups are scrambling to get more high school programs approved by superintendents and school boards.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Can you think of any building that would be a better place for displaying the 10 Commandments than a courthouse?"

I try to stay away from the irreverant, purely satirical takes on some of these important issues. And they are important and deserve to be treated with respect.... the Ten Commandments and all. But I can't resist this link: Stephen Colbert asks Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, co-sponsor of HR 11, which would require the 10 Commandments to be displayed in the House and Senate buildings.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom will host a panel discussion tomorrow on the state of religious liberty around the world.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today's NYTimes reports that the IRS is investigating the tax-exempt status of non-profit hospitals, sending out extensive questionnaires to hundreds of medical providers, including those with religious affiliations:

The survey comes at a time when nonprofit hospitals are receiving closer scrutiny from Congress and state officials. Lawmakers of both political parties say that in today's fiercely competitive health care marketplace, many nonprofit hospitals operate like investor-owned, profit-making institutions. Indeed, some nonprofit hospitals have for-profit affiliates and subsidiaries that operate nursing homes, surgery centers, office buildings and other businesses.
...
Before 1969, the I.R.S. required hospitals to provide charity care to qualify for tax-exempt status. Since then, the agency has not specifically required such care, as long as hospitals provide benefits to the community in other ways — for example, by offering health fairs, screening for cancer and cholesterol, providing emergency care, training doctors and conducting medical research.

[Iowa Senator Chuck] Grassley and other lawmakers say hospitals have too much leeway under this "community benefit standard."

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Religion News Service's Daniel Burke offers a report on Judge Damrell's decision throwing out Michael Newdow's most recent challenge to "In God We Trust."

The Washington Post says that religious minorities in Iran are seeing increasing levels of harassment.

In The Revealer, Nicole Greenfield analyzes the role departing Bush advisor Michael Gerson played in infusing the President's rhetoric with the language of religion.

In The Las Vegas Sun, the AP reports on a decision by officials at Foothill High School to cut off the mike of a valedictorian's commencement speech when the student speaker veered off of prepared remarks and began speaking about Christ in a way that was deemed "proselytizing." (via Religion Clause)

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The California Supreme Court will hear the case of a lesbian denied infertitility treatment because of the religious beliefs of the doctors. The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The case should clear up "confusion in the public mind about whether religious beliefs excuse discrimination,'' said attorney Jennifer Pizer of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represents Benitez. "This is a significant problem for gay people.''

Attorney Robert Tyler of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represents the clinic and two physicians who refused to treat Benitez, said the case will decide the extent of a person's right "to exercise your faith as a Christian without being forced and compelled to do something that would violate your religious beliefs.''

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last week I posted on the NJ lawsuit surrounding an after-school talent show in which an elementary school girl was denied the right to sing the song of her choice, "Awesome God." Her cause has been joined by both the Allied Defense Fund and the ACLU. The school official maintains it's not the religious nature of the song that is problematic, but the explicitly proselytizing elements of the lyrics, and the disturbing imagery. Today's Christian Science Monitor has more:

The US Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue of religious speech at the elementary school level. The justices have allowed students to use public school classrooms for religious meetings after school, but they have also struck down the offering of a student-led prayer prior to high school football games in Texas.

The Frenchtown case falls somewhere between those two decisions, analysts say. Judge Chesler must decide whether letting the girl sing "Awesome God" would be a school endorsement of a particular religious outlook in violation of the First Amendment's "establishment clause," or merely be a recognition of the girl's right to express her faith under the "free speech" and "free exercise" clauses.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Southern Baptist Convention and, among other things, said that spreading freedom around the world means promoting religious liberty as an essential democratic value. Associated Baptist Press' Rob Marus reports:

"Human dignity is not the grant of governments. ... It is God's endowment to all humanity."

Some people throughout the world are denied that dignity regularly by poverty, by the lack of political and religious freedom and by human trafficking and other forms of subjugation, she said, and those situations are ultimately in America's best interest to ameliorate.

"These are tragedies, but they are also threats in the making," Rice said.

The United States has a keen interest in promoting religious freedom abroad, stopping oppression in places like Darfur, fighting AIDS and poverty and ending human trafficking worldwide, because oppression, poverty and suffering produce instability, she asserted.

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Via Religion Clause, USAToday has a story about the growing number of female Muslim Americans who are requesting accommodation for their religious beliefs, specifically the principle that dictates women without head covering should not be seen by men.

Sadly, the issue (even within the Muslim community) would seem to be less about whether its possible or appropriate for businesses and institutions to make accommodations, and is more about whether Muslims risk significant "backlash" for even asking.

From my point of view, I would have hoped the discussion--whatever conclusion is reached--could be about weighing the burdens and benefits in accommodating religious exercise, not about hatred and acrimony.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

...still the national motto, after a US District Court judge dismissed Michael Newdow's complaint in a ruling Monday. The decision by Judge Frank Damrell, which says essentially that 9th Circuit precedent (Aronow v. US) is on point, and constrains him from any other outcome on the issue of an Establishment Clause violation (not that he sounds eager to reach any other conclusion), is here. As for Free Exercise, the Judge concludes:

Plaintiff’s Free Exercise and RFRA claims arise from his assertion that the motto is blatantly religious. Because the national motto has been held to be secular in nature, there is no proper allegation that the government compelled plaintiff to affirm a repugnant belief in monotheism.

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Alaska is being sued to prevent a bill that would enhance a religious property tax exemption to include teacher housing. Not only does this exemption protect only religious entities--a common property tax exception--in this case it may only apply to a single religious institution. The AP reports:

The Anchorage Baptist Temple appears to be the only religious organization in the state that currently benefits from the exemption, said Steve Van Sant, state assessor. City officials say they are still assessing its potential impacts.

In an e-mail to the Associated Press, Glenn Clary, a pastor with the Baptist church, described the lawsuit as harassment and an attack against all religious institutions. He said the bill merely clarifies existing law.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed 3 resolutions condemning China: one marking the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations, and 2 involving ongoing religious persecution and a lack of religious liberty. China's response: who, me?

The resolution "constitutes a gross interference in China's internal affairs," said Jiang Yu, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman. "We express strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition."

Jiang said the passing of the resolution was a "groundless accusation and attack against China's religious and human rights."
...
China maintains tight control over all religions. Those who practice Falun Gong, a banned spiritual movement, or who attend underground Protestant or Catholic churches routinely face detention, harassment and sometimes imprisonment.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Orlando Sentinel

A sales tax exemption for religious items and publications including Bibles should be declared unconstitutional, a lawyer for a Wiccan group told the state Supreme Court on Friday.
...
Kevin Shaughnessy, representing The Florida Catholic and The Florida Baptist Witness, and Deputy Solicitor General James McKee said the Wiccans lack legal standing to challenge the exemption because they are not harmed by it.

Both also argued it does not violate the First Amendment because certain nonreligious publications, although not all, also get the same tax break.

"It encourages freedom of speech," Shaughnessy said.

The state has avoided potentially unconstitutional religious entanglements by letting retailers decide which items qualify for the exemption, McKee said. [Plaintiff attorney Heather] Morcroft contended the state cannot avoid legal responsibility that way.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In 2004, the Supreme Court overturned the controversial Pledge of Allegiance decision by th 9th Circuit, maintaining that attorney/client Michael Newdow lacked the standing to bring the suit. Since then, he has been hired by 2 parents to revisist the effort to challenge "under God" in public school recitations of the Pledge. In a new column, Howard Bashman considers whether the 9th Circuit is bound by its previous decision on the merits, as a federal district court has ruled. His opinion, in a word? No.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Now that faith-based funding has become a reality--and is gathering a gradual acceptance--the dilemma long predicted by opponents is starting to take shape: where do we draw the line? And how do we police the murky middle where social services become religious programs? Today's Christian Science Monitor reports on the Iowa prison decision in terms of this dilemma, and while this ruling may mark a moment of resistance, pushing back against a practice that has gone unchecked, the line has clearly moved in recent years.

The trouble has been a growing ambiguity about what is and isn't acceptable, and almost no monitoring of activities once the grants have been made.

"They say 'here are the rules' and make the grants, but I think there's a lot of 'don't ask, don't tell' going on," says Ira Lupu, a law professor at George Washington University. The legal line can be ambiguous: A program that offers a meal and includes a voluntary grace would most likely be acceptable, he says, but the programs that deal with some sort of religious character transformation are problematic. "That's where you cross the line, if the government is paying for it."

Though Mr. Bush's faith-based initiative, first announced in 2001, has never received congressional approval, the program has been expanded through executive order, and Bush recently announced that federal funding to religious groups grew to $2.1 billion last year - about 11 percent of the total funds awarded to community groups.

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday's NYTimes entered the discussion over the potential impact on religious liberty of same-sex marriage. Following last week's Chicago Tribune, which presented competing evaluations of the prevalent argument that an impending "train wreck" threatens religious freedom, the Times piece begins:

Is same-sex marriage on a collision course with religious liberty? It wasn't surprising that before the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage died in the Senate this week, several senators supporting it raised that danger.

But when highly respected legal experts on civil liberties, including ones favoring same-sex marriage, raise the same possibility, their concerns cannot be dismissed as partisan debating points.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A Nebraska couple has sued the state, claiming a law requiring them to have blood drawn from their newborn baby is unconstitutional. The law, unique to Nebraska, does not provide for a religious exemption.

The blood screening has been standard practice in Nebraska since 1967. State health officials say the test, which consists of pricking an infant's heel to draw five drops of blood, is necessary to prevent several metabolic diseases that can cause severe mental retardation or death if left undetected.

Officials say those diseases put a strain on families and on taxpayers who often must pay for long-term care of the disabled.

Scientologists believe, however, that babies are best served with seven days of silence after birth.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In a post earlier this week I commented on the public perception of the ACLU. And what do you know, right on cue, the new issue of Report from the Capital - the Baptist Joint Committee's print publication - includes a summary of BJC director Brent Walker's recent remarks at an ACLU convention. Asked to offer his "thoughts on how the ACLU could more effectively address religion and religious liberty issues," Brent offered 4 main points. Here's #1:

[D]o not stereotype those whom you consider to be your enemies (or those who consider YOU to be THEIR enemies). We make a mistake if we lump everybody together as the "religious right" or as "fundamentalist." These are not monolithic categories; those who fall within those general descriptions are not all the same. They differ on policy issues, views about church and state and in temperament. Some who are conservative theologically may be liberal politically, such as Ron Sider and Jim Wallis. And don't lump all Baptists together either. There's a world of difference, theologically and politically, between Tony Campolo, Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers, on the one hand, and Jerry Falwell, Roy Moore and Pat Robertson, on the other.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier in the week, NPR's Morning Edition had this story on the overturning of Iowa's funding of the InnerChange religious rehabilitation program. And this editorial appeared in the Demoines Register:

This Iowa ruling likely will be a proxy in the debate over faith-based government services, but this case should not be seen as the only way to think about the issue: Each situation, whether it be a housing program or child care, must be judged on its own unique set of facts.

Prison Fellowship issued a statement condemning the decision: "The courts took God out of America's schools, now they are on the path to take God out of America's prisons." Federal judges are often accused of wielding too much power, but even if that's true, they don't have the power to order the Supreme Being out of public institutions. They do, however, have the power to remind us from time to time that the First Amendment says government may not establish a national religion. That is what Pratt said in this ruling. Based on the facts, it is hard to see how he could have come to any other conclusion.

Posted by Don Byrd at 03:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Dallas Morning-News reports on the platform voted in at last weekend's GOP convention in San Antonio:

The party platform, adopted Saturday, declares "America is a Christian nation" and affirms that "God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom."

"We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state," it says.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:16 AM | Permalink