Blog from the Capital

In a recent interview with beliefnet.com, Arizona Senator and Republican presidential candidate John McCain professed to agree with a majority of Americans that the US Constitution "establishes a Christian nation." He also "feel(s) that [Christianity]'s an important part of our qualifications to lead," despite the Constitution's strict prohibition on a religious test for public office. McCain repeatedly referred to America being founded specifically on "Christian principles", but never enumerated them, or explained what he meant by it. You can read part of the transcript or - what I recommend - watch the videos here.

David Kuo has more.

[UPDATE: In a statement of clarification, McCain says that he believes the Constitution offers equal rights to members of all faiths, and then this, about his "Christian nation" remark:

"In the interview he also observed that the values protected by the Constitution, by which he meant values such as respect for human life and dignity, are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. That is all he intended to say to the question, America is a Christian nation, and it is hardly a controversial claim."

Posted by Don Byrd at 06:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Kansas City Star reports on Governor Blunt's announcement of the creation of a team to study opportunities for government cooperation with faith-based groups.

Asked about the line between separation of church and state, the governor agreed there is a line but said it would not be crossed.

“Clearly, this is not about forcing anybody to go through some sort of religious conversion,” Blunt said, adding, though, that “a conversion will often occur, and nobody should apologize for it when it does.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 09:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is profiled in a Bridgewater Courier-News piece, discussing his latest book, released in June:

"In the history of countries that have a merger of church and state, the church is corrupted by the state," he said. "The rights of citizens are compromised by the church. A separation of church and state is good for both churches and the citizens.

"Our world isn't broken, so it shouldn't be fixed," Dershowitz said. "We have the highest level of church attendance and belief in God of any country in the world. It is absurd to fix what is the envy of the world."
...
"The separation of church and state keeps Jews as first-class citizens," he said. "Other than Israel, this is the only country where they have not been disqualified from anything. When Disraeli was made the prime minister of England, he was forced to convert. He couldn't be Jewish and hold office. But Jews can be anything they want in America because of the separation of church and state."

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Just saw this interesting story of a group of 100 Colorado high school students who are protesting the broadcast of the pledge of allegiance over the PA system every day.

They object to hearing the phrase "one nation, under God" during the morning Pledge recitation, led over the school's public address system.

'We don't object to pledging to our country, but we do object to pledging to a religion," said Ashley Guesman, 17, a protest organizer.

He said that this morning's protest was not disruptive, and that there would be no consequences for participants.

"If the kids want to recite the Pledge, we respect that. If they don't want to recite the Pledge, we respect that. If they want to recite a different Pledge, I guess we need to respect that," he said.

"This is not a cookie-cutter high school," he said. "These kids are experiencing the democratic process, and putting their ideas out to the community. Nothing that happened today is anti-American. Good for the kids. I'm proud that they follow the democratic process of telling the community about ideas they disagree with."

"I pledge allegiance to the flag and my constitutional rights with which it comes. And to the diversity in which our nation stands. One nation, part of one planet, with liberty, freedom, choice and justice for all."

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

Access to Recovery (ATR) is the government's 3-year-old program to provide vouchers for those in need of substance abuse assistance. The vouchers can be used to attend any substance abuse program - including religious ones - on a list of approved facilities. An HHS report reveals that one third of all voucher money has been sent to faith-based programs.

So, how does one get on the list of approved providers? Sounds like it's got nothing to do with whether relevant standards are met. The Roundtable reports:

Critics of ATR have said the program improperly expands government-funded services to faith-based programs, many of which do not meet licensing requirements or medically-sanctioned standards of state-approved services. Faith-based organizations receiving government money through vouchers are allowed to use religiously-based curriculum in treatment, and that has raised concerns about church-state separation among civil liberties groups. Critics have also said ATR is insufficient to meet the needs of 23.6 million Americans with substance abuse problems.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Christian Post reports on national "See You at the Pole" day:

Continuing on the prayer tradition that began seventeen years ago with a small student-led group in Texas, students around the nation gathered at the flagpoles of their local schools Wednesday morning to pray for a spiritual awakening across campuses and countries.

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Under sharp criticism from the right and the left, and facing a lawsuit, the bureau of prisons has changed course on its policy to immediately remove from prison libraries all religious materials not on an approved list. Today's NYTimes has the story:

The bureau has not abandoned the idea of creating such lists, Judi Simon Garrett, a spokeswoman, said in an e-mail message. But rather than packing away everything while those lists were compiled, the religious materials will remain on the shelves, Ms. Garrett explained.

In an e-mail message Wednesday, the bureau said: “In response to concerns expressed by members of several religious communities, the Bureau of Prisons has decided to alter its planned course of action with respect to the Chapel Library Project.

“The bureau will begin immediately to return to chapel libraries materials that were removed in June 2007, with the exception of any publications that have been found to be inappropriate, such as material that could be radicalizing or incite violence. The review of all materials in chapel libraries will be completed by the end of January 2008.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Ina Jaffe filed this report for Morning Edition today. It's worth a listen.

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

Federal Judge Lynn Adelman of the Wisconsin Eastern District Court ruled yesterday that the Milwaukee County Sheriff engaged in proselytizing and coercive religious promotion when he forced employees to sit through multiple presentations by a local Christian group. Thanks to Religion Clause for pointing to the decision and the Milwaukee Sentinel piece on the situation. This case sounds like many others in that it's driven by a state agent that's decidedly intransigent.

Roy Felber, president of the Deputy Sheriff's Association, said no one should be forced to listen to a religious message at work and said letting one group make a presentation could open the door to others.

Felber said he wished the issue could have been solved short of a lawsuit.

"This is getting old," he said. "I wish we could sit down and talk. Unfortunately, the only way we can communicate with the sheriff is through the courts. It's not productive for him or us."

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The military is investigating allegations by plaintiff Jeremy Hall that he has been harassed and threatened after filing suit against Major Welborne and the Pentagon. Hall claimes he was denied the right to organize a meeting of non-Christians and that our nation's military is a culture of Christian proselytization and hostility toward non-believers.

Hall wrote in a series of e-mails to [Military Religious Freedom Foundation head Mikey] Weinstein that he feared for his safety after being “hallchecked” — being shoved against the wall in a hallway — by fellow soldiers who objected to his lawsuit. Bloggers on the Internet have also referred to “fragging” Hall, or killing him by friendly fire.

“I hope I am not the victim of a hate crime while I sleep tonight. I do not want to die for my country this way,” wrote Hall, who said a non-commissioned officer was threatening to beat him. “I’m doing my best right now. But I am still afraid that I might be harmed or worse.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As prison libraries continue to remove books not on the bureau's list of acceptable religious material, Christian Post reporter Michelle Vu adds this element in her new story on the issue:

In some prisons, the removal of non-approved books has nearly emptied out all the shelves. Furthermore, the bureau has not provided money to purchase approved books.

Meanwhile, Melissa Rogers noticed that the recent NYTimes story now includes links to lists of the acceptable religious books, organized by faith in the left margin.

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The LATimes reports that the California church, recently informed that its tax-exempt status is intact despite an election eve sermon deemed improper, is urging an investigation into the tactics and procedures of the IRS in its aggressive and lengthy inquiry into the church.

All Saints has asked a top Treasury Department official to investigate what the church called a series of procedural and substantive errors in the case, including allegedly inappropriate conversations between IRS and Justice Department officials about the investigation.

Those conversations, documented in e-mails obtained by the church through Freedom of Information Act requests, appear to show that Justice Department officials were involved in the All Saints case before the IRS made any formal referral of it for possible prosecution, an attorney for the church said. The discussions raise concerns that the IRS' investigation was politically motivated, church officials said. One e-mail, for example, appears to show coordination between IRS and Justice Department officials about a request to the church for documents. Others discuss the timing of the request and news coverage about the case.

"In view of the fact that recent congressional inquiries have revealed extensive politicization of [the Department of Justice], my client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination," attorney Marcus S. Owens wrote in a letter Friday requesting an investigation.

Owens, a former director of the IRS division that handles tax-exempt organizations, said that although liberal and conservative congregations and other nonprofits had been investigated by the IRS in recent years, its examination of All Saints was "highly unusual" in a number of ways, not only in its seemingly contradictory conclusions.

I have the same head-scratching response to those who say that somehow the IRS guidelines aren't clear. They make pretty good thoughtful common sense to me in avoiding attempts to influence an election. If they were any more specific, they'd be: a) fraught with loopholes and b) too restrictive without regard to context. The IRS weighs a variety of factors - the only sensible way to do it - and those factors seem pretty easy to comprehend. Read for yourself the IRS' "key factors" that seem relevant here, on pages 8 and 9 of the guidelines. Of course, the IRS should make very clear their rationale for deeming the sermon improper and their procedures of investigation, which sound troubling in this case. But I think it's difficult to read the factors in that list, and then read the sermon, and claim to have no idea what might be problematic about it.

None of that condones any improprieties by the IRS in establishing and applying procedures fairly and consistently. They should absolutely be open and clear about conclusions. But if anything needs to be explained more clearly, it's those things, not the electioneering guidelines themselves.

Also, while I'm complaining, is it really right to say - as so many headlines I've encountered here have - that the IRS "dropped the case"? Their procedure may have been unusual - even unfair. But it seems like they didn't so much drop the case as conclude it. They concluded that the sermon crossed the line, but that no punitive action was warranted. Don't most IRS investigations into 501(c)(3) electioneering end with that same outcome? A determination that some improper activity took place, but that no punishment or tax is needed?

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Shortly before the 2004 presidential election, a sermon preached at All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA raised church-state concerns and an IRS investigation. It also highlighted a fundamental question in the tax-exempt rules governing churches and electioneering: where is the line between campaigning and preaching on the issues of the day? (You can read about the controversy in prior posts here and BJC statement here).

The church has now received a letter concluding IRS investigations, indicating that the sermon was in fact improper "intervention" into the campaign, but that no sanction is necessary.

Based on the existing record, the Church's actions lead us to the conclusion that the Church intervened in the 2004 Presidential election campaign. We note that this appears to be a one-time occurrence add that you have policies in place to ensure that the Church complies with the prohibition against intervention in campaigns for public office. We advise you to inform guest speakers of your policy and to be mindful of that policy when posting information that makes reference to specific candidates on your website during future election campaigns.

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Star-Telegram reports that, a few weeks into the new school year, teachers, students, parents and school officials have not noticed a change in the wake of Texas's controversial new Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act.

The new law is designed to provide a public forum for students who wish to speak, and protects religious speech as well as secular viewpoints. Lawyers drafted policies for the boards to adopt and speculated when the first legal challenge would come.

But a month into the school year, there has been no reaction from students or parents reported at any local school district, officials said.

"They've posted it and done what they needed to do to get the word out there, but nobody's taken advantage of it," said Lesley Weaver, spokeswoman for the Northwest school district.

[UPDATE: Title changed to be a bit more accurate.]

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today's NYTimes updates the Bureau of Prisons' new policy to purge prison libraries of religious material not on a pre-approved list. Religious liberty advocates from across the political spectrum seem to agree that this is a bad idea. But, so far, the bureau is holding fast.

The bureau, the target of a class-action lawsuit by prisoners because of the book purge, is hearing criticism from a broad array of religious groups and leaders. Sojourners, a liberal evangelical group based in Washington, sent an alert to its members, who within 48 hours sent the bureau more than 15,000 e-mail messages urging it to scrap the policy. The issue is also a hot topic on conservative Christian talk radio shows.

Spokesmen for the Bureau of Prisons said it was not reconsidering its policy. The bureau said it was prompted to act by a report in 2004 from the inspector general of the Department of Justice, which mentioned that since most prisons did not catalog their library materials, radical books that incite violence and hatred could infiltrate the shelves.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:31 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Americans United has sent a letter warning publicly funded Washington Latin School about the use of religion in its school day. From the AU press release:

In a letter to Washington Latin officials and the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, Americans United cites parents’ complaints over the school’s convocations, graduations and daily morning meetings that are held in the sanctuary of Christ Church on Embassy Row. It also notes the headmaster’s leading of students in prayer.

Americans United asserts that Headmaster T. Robinson Ahlstrom has also weaved religious commentary into addresses before students, such as telling students that “Christ said to make your enemy your friend” and that Mahatma Gandhi really wanted to be a Christian.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Which is more maddening and makes you pull more hair out: the dialogue in an episode of Chuck Norris's TV show, or the arguments in one of his newspaper columns decrying the separation of church and state? Today, I'm voting for the column. In his latest, Chuck tries to place Article XI of 1797's Treaty of Tripoli in some context, to make the case that it means something entirely different from what it quite plainly says:

[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...

Read about Chuck's troubling argument - and see why I'm left wondering how he competes in ultimate fighting with such huge blinders on? - in the extended entry below.

First, credit where it's due: he may be correct that this clause was not intended as the sweeping, blanket statement it is often used to represent. As Forrest Church says in his new book (review forthcoming) "So Help Me God":

Too much can be made of this document as a proof text that Adams believed, as the treaty says, that "the United States is by no means founded on the Christian Religion." Washington, Jefferson and Madison certainly could have endorsed this clause, but Adams at this point in his political career, anyway, could not. In signing the treaty, he either glossed over the eleventh article as being of no moment or read its meaning narrowly. At the time Adams expressly believed that the U.S. government could not prosper apart from a sound Christian foundation.

[H]ow would and should a Christian nation's delegates answer the question, "Are you a Christian nation?" If you answer "yes," you are quickly categorized into a Crusade-form of Christianity and an enemy. If you answer "no," then you appear to be denying the basis upon which you were founded. Add to the mix that you are negotiating in a time of war, have very limited naval resources, are in recovery from another (Revolutionary) war, and that "yes, with an explanation" is not exactly the answer that is going to bail your seamen, cargo and ships out of Muslim extremist captivity.

The other argument he uses is much more instructive and is similar to Church's explanation of a "narrow" reading. It's all about the context here, he says. The U.S. government was not trying to deny its Christian heritage under this view, it was trying to assure Tripoli that we mean no harm, that the violent, warring experience they had with the Christian nations of Europe is not what they will find with us.

The way they understood Christianity was through the lens of the Crusades, and so perceived any Christian country as a militant threat to their existence.

At this point, I always wonder of those arguing America as a Christian nation: what are they hoping to gain? What entanglement are they attempting to justify? America is a Christian nation, therefore.... what? Government should give preference to the Christian faith? or should actively inhibit the growth of other religions? I don't think even Walker, Texas Ranger would endorse such a clearly unconstitutional view. What, then?

With that uncertain skepticism, and at the risk of appearing to compare Chuck Norris and today's religious right with the rather dangerous Kingdom of Tripoli, circa 1790, I would ask Chuck's earlier question right back at him, with some modifications:

How would and should a free nation's delegates answer the question, "Are you a Christian nation?" If you answer "yes," you are encouraging those who would argue for implicit religious preference by government, undermining the religious freedom principles on which the country was founded, and If you answer "no," then you appear to be denying - or at least lamenting - the reality that America is overwhelmingly made up of religious, indeed Christian, citizens. Add to the mix that you are engaged in a culture war with those who would deny the importance of our religious diversity and the principle of keeping church and state institutionally separate, and that "yes, with an explanation" is not exactly the answer that is going to keep our First Amendment freedoms intact.

Norris - and those who think like him - would demand the right to add context and caveat to any official expression of distance between the church and institutions of government. He demands the right to say "yes, with an explanation...". But he would deny the same right on the other side, those of us who in the spirit of religious liberty would say of our nation's prominent religious culture "yes, but..."

So, even if it may be true that we are a nation of mostly Christians, and that many of our national principles have the same shape as some Christian principles - peace, equality, justice, freedom of conscience - the answer to the question is as clear and as simple and right as it was 210 years ago, and must be said this way for many of the same reasons, to avoid many of the same potential misunderstandings: The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When we last checked in with the controversial memorial cross at Mt. Soledad, CA, Congress was getting involved, federalizing the land on which it stands to avoid previous court orders mandating its removal for violating the separation of church and state. Now, a judge has ruled that the primary legislators involved in that act may have to turn over documents to demonstrate their intentions in urging the President to seize the land in question. The New York Sun reported yesterday:

The judge also said records of contacts with local officials, citizens' groups, and the press might constitute "political activities" that are not protected from subpoena.

Although Judge Bates acknowledged that the distinctions were "not the brightest of lines," he said the congressmen should make the first attempt to segregate the information.
...
The Jewish War Veterans of America filed its lawsuit in San Diego last year after President Bush signed legislation seizing the land. To prevail, the group will have to prove that the legislation was intended to advance a religious goal. The dispute over the congressmen's records was heard in Washington because that is where the files are located.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The ACLU of Michigan has come under fire for choosing *not* to object to the University of Michigan at Deaborn's plan to install foot baths that will, among other things, accommodate Muslim students' need to wash their feet before prayer. The civil liberties watchdog only cries foul - the charge says - when Christians are accommodated. Today, ACLU of Michigan Director Kary Moss responds to that complain in a Detroit News op-ed.

[T]he issue of the University of Michigan Dearborn installing footbaths is complicated. This issue would be simpler if the government were building inherently religious facilities. Here, the footbaths are not inherently religious facilities -- they are not blessed, cannot be desecrated and are open to everyone for any purpose. They are essentially spigots in the bathroom wall.

In addition, the motivation of the university seems to be a response to a practical cleanliness and safety issue. Not every government expenditure to promote safety is unconstitutional because it has an incidental benefit to worshippers.

Posted by Don Byrd at 02:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Baptist Joint Committee Director Brent Walker answers the question at the Washington Post "On Faith" forum here. Check it out. Browse all panelist responses here.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A new lawsuit filed in Kansas City's US District Court accuses the Defense Department of violating religious freedom of an atheist soldier, and of operating under a pattern of systemic religious discrimination. From the sounds of this AP report - and Bruce Wilson's new DailyKos diary - there may be more suits on the way.

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which is helping [the plaintiff, Jeremy] Hall with his lawsuit, said it is the first of many.

"We're going to expose the pernicious practice and pattern of these massive violations of the Constitution," Weinstein said. "That we had to go to this extent is just a heinous disgrace that defies any possible explanation."
...
The lawsuit claims Hall was forced to "submit to a religious test as a qualification to his post as a soldier."

Hall and the foundation are asking the court to block Welborne from establishing "compulsory religious practices"...

Posted by Don Byrd at 01:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Kentucky's state government will officially open a faith-based initiatives office Thursday with a conference and keynote address from White House faith-based Director Jay Hein. Louisville's Courier-Journal notes the ongoing controversy and concerns about constitutionality.

Kentucky already contracts with several faith-based providers for social services.

Its funding of one group, the Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, has been challenged in a long-running federal lawsuit by plaintiffs who say the agency is using taxpayer money to promote its religion.
...
The legislation creating the office says that providing funds to such organizations cannot violate federal or state constitutional provisions. It adds that such contractors cannot discriminate against beneficiaries of their social programs on the grounds of religion.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A pavilion in Ocean Grove, NJ has been deemed not properly open to all the public for refusing lesbian couples the right to hold civil union ceremonies there. Because of the restriction, the NJ environmental protection commissioner declined an application to renew tax exemptions for the pavilion.

In a letter dated Saturday that revoked the longstanding certification, Ms. Jackson, the environmental protection commissioner, wrote, “It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis.”

The administrator of the Camp Meeting Association, Scott Hoffman, said in a written statement that “the Camp Meeting is reviewing the letter. However, it is worth noting that over 99 percent of the Camp Meeting’s land was recertified as tax-exempt.”

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Faced with a growing budget deficit in its schools, Washington's Roman Catholic Diocese is considering a move that would save 8 institutions by changing them into secular, publicly-funded, charter schools. Education Week has more:

If the conversions were to take place, the schools would likely be closely watched to ensure no church-state lines were crossed.

“If the archdiocese is simply turning these into secular schools without any religious content, there shouldn’t be any problem,” said Robert Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington-based group. “But anything that’s sort of halfway or in between is going to be problematic.”

Ms. Weitzel-O’Neill, the archdiocesan superintendent, said all religious elements would be removed from the schools.

“Certainly, they will not be Catholic schools, and that’s the bitter pill,” she said.

Posted by Don Byrd at 04:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In USAToday, the ACLU's Jeremy Gunn writes on the considerations surrounding religious accommodation. He makes the reasonable point - sometimes difficult to get across - that the intent and purpose of an accommodation counts for a lot.

The schools assert that the foot baths would be installed for reasons of hygiene and safety. If that is true, this would seem to be a practical and reasonable accommodation. On the other hand, if the purpose for the foot baths were to promote Islamic prayers, or to entice Muslims to contribute money to the school, or to respond to pressure by Muslims to accommodate their practices, these would be inappropriate.

Posted by Don Byrd at 09:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Baltimore Sun offered this write-up of Friday's Guantanamo Bay religious freedom appeal hearing in front of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Muslim plaintiffs have help from some unlikely allies. Religious groups as diverse as Jews and evangelicals have filed briefs in support, as has a group of retired military officers.

While these groups' reasons vary, as do those of the lawyers donating their time to the case, there is a common theme: a desire to infuse the U.S. war on terrorism with an increased moral sensibility. "This is a case about accountability," said Eric Lewis, the Washington lawyer who represents the four freed detainees.

K. Hollyn Hollman, a lawyer for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, added, "It would be extremely sad if our country was using religion as a means to target people in interrogations."

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Baptist Joint Committee filed an amicus brief earlier this year in the case involving 4 former Guantanamo Bay detainees who claim their religious freedom rights under RFRA were violated. A lower court held that RFRA applies to prisoners at Guantanamo, a decision the government is appealing. From the BJC press release:

BJC General Counsel K. Hollyn Hollman said individuals and faith communities from across the religious spectrum recognize that our country’s commitment to religious freedom is one of its greatest attributes.

“RFRA is a limitation on governmental interference with religious practice,” Hollman said. “Its protections are intentionally broad and reflect the widely shared belief that religious freedom is paramount.

“RFRA, like the First Amendment itself, reflects our nation’s high regard for religion and for religious liberty” Hollman said. “We should be alarmed any time the government seeks to narrow those protections.”

In its friend-of-the-court brief, the BJC acknowledged grave concerns about terrorism and the agency’s intent not to encumber the government’s efforts to bring culpable parties to justice, while arguing RFRA’s high standard for the federal government in accommodating religious practice and respecting religious diversity be preserved.

[UPDATE: Reuters files this story on today's arguments:

Judge A. Raymond Randolph appeared sceptical of whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applied to foreign prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Randolph said Lewis' position implied the law would apply to foreign prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the world. "There is no territorial restriction whatsoever under your argument," Randolph said.]

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An AP story previews the State Department's report this way:

Religious freedom has sharply deteriorated in Iraq over the past year because of both the insurgency and violence targeting specific faiths, despite the U.S. military buildup intended to improve security, says a State Department report to be released Friday.

The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom finds that all worshippers are targeted for attacks and the violence is not confined to the well-known rivalry between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

"The ongoing insurgency significantly harmed the ability of all religious believers to practice their faith," says the 22-page executive summary of the report, obtained by The Associated Press ahead of its official release by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

[UPDATE: You can read the State Dept. report here. Secretary Rice's remarks are here. Ambassador Hanford's briefing is here. ]

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will offer remarks in advance of the State Department's annual International Religious Freedom Report release. The report will be available in the afternoon, following her briefing.

Posted by Don Byrd at 08:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's Washington Post, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson joins the chorus of those faulting the Bureau of Prisons for its decision to purge its libraries of all texts not on an acceptable list for each major religion:

In response to a genuine problem, the Bureau of Prisons has managed to be late, clumsy and self-defeating, all at the same time.

The immediate effect of the new policy has been to decimate prison libraries collected over decades. A policy directed at jihadist literature has, for example, resulted in the removal of three-quarters of the Jewish books at the Otisville Prison in New York, ranging from the Zohar to the works of 12th-century Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides to Rabbi Harold Kushner's "When Bad Things Happen to Good People."
...
[I]t is hard to imagine that liquidating religious libraries is the least intrusive means to oppose terrorist propaganda...

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Inspector General Thomas Charles has cleared Ohio of wrongdoing in funding "We Care America", an organization that distributes state funding to faith-based groups. But questions were raised concerning the group's use of public money and the lack of government oversight

The report criticized the faith-based office and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services during the administration of former Gov. Bob Taft for failing to monitor the contract, which was funded largely by federal welfare dollars.
...
The fledgling Governor's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2005 hired We Care America to help it establish programs and administer grants awarded to faith-based groups. When the firm filed for liquidation in U.S. bankruptcy court in Virginia in June, it said Ohio still owed it $179,000.

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A new editorial from the Christian Science Monitor takes on the decision of the Bureau of Prisons to purge prison libraries of some religious material deemed dangerous.

While the class-action suit will further help define prisoner religious rights, it may also test judicial commitment to religious liberty in the war on Islamic terror.

The issue is not whether prison literature is censored, but the degree to which it is. US law and the Constitution allow government to restrict religious freedom in prisons as long as it has a compelling interest and uses the "least restrictive means" to pursue its interest. Making sure prisons don't become recruiting grounds for terrorists certainly is a compelling interest.

But the BOP has overreached.
...
This goes far beyond withholding obviously inappropriate materials for security reasons, as done by the chaplains, and instead defines what is religiously appropriate – a disturbing development, even in a prison context. As Gary Friedman, spokesman for the American Corectional Chaplains Association says: "Radicalization is in the mind of the beholder."

Posted by Don Byrd at 07:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

USAToday's Andrea Stone reports on a new First Amendment Center poll that brings bad news about Americans' views on religion and the Constitution.

The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation.
...
Most respondents, 58%, say teachers in public schools should be allowed to lead prayers. That is an increase from 2005, when 52% supported teacher-led prayer in public schools.
...
The "scariest" number, in [First Amendment Center head Charles] Haynes' opinion, is that only 56% agree that freedom of religion applies to all groups "regardless of how extreme their beliefs are." That's down from 72% in 2000. More than one in four say constitutional protection of religion does not apply to "extreme" groups.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that personal writings directed to God are not confidential religious communication. Like other states, Michigan offers an evidentiary privilege that protects communication with clergy from being admissible in trial. Janniss Stovall argued before the appellate court that the privilege should be extended to her journal entries, which she addressed to God. (Admissions in the journal were used to convict her of assault with attempt to commit murder.)

In its unanimous decision, the court sums up her interesting First Amendment argument in four steps:

Step one: Michigan has created an evidentiary privilege for religious communications. Step two: the privilege applies only to religions that encourage their members to communicate with God through an intermediary. Step three: this limitation discriminates among religions because it disfavors belief systems in which individuals communicate directly with God. Step four: the solution to this First Amendment problem is not to strike the privilege (which would not benefit Varner) but to extend it to all religions, including those that do not use intermediaries, and thus to extend the privilege to any journal entry that might be construed as a prayer to God.

The privilege requires the communication to be directed to a member of the clergy... because it is the clergy who may be subpoenaed to testify against the individual. The same possibility does not exist with private writings to God, who may be petitioned but never subpoenaed.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

At the Washington Post's On Faith, Baptist Joint Committee Director Brent Walker has joined the panel of respondents, and offers his first post, on religious extremism and the lessons of September 11, 2001.

Our goal should be the greatest amount of religious freedom and zero tolerance for violence in the name of religion. It requires that the fear of terror and Islamist extremism not serve as kindling for Christian theocratic tendencies, which is why, in the days following the events of September 11, the Baptist Joint Committee urged that the government use language that is consistent with the role of civil government. Being careful, that is, not to sow seeds of hate, cast blame where it does not belong nor seek vengeance instead of justice.

Posted by Don Byrd at 12:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The IRS ruled that James Dobson's endorsement of candidates did not violate the tax-exempt status of his organization, Focus on the Family. The Denver Post has more:

The IRS, in a letter to Focus on the Family signed by a director of examinations, Marsha Ramirez, said the IRS audit:

"Revealed that Dr. Dobson's reported remarks did not occur in publications of Focus on the Family, did not occur at functions of Focus on the Family, and did not involve Dr. Dobson suggesting that he was speaking as a representative of Focus on the Family."

Two watchdog groups had filed complaints against Focus on the Family in 2005 alleging Dobson had engaged in prohibited electioneering.
...
As to whether Dobson will endorse any candidates in 2008, "It's too early to tell," said Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family senior vice president for government and public policy.

"Dr. Dobson knows to use individual private stationery and to state he is speaking as an individual and not as a representative of the organization he founded," Minnery said. "We pay a lot of money to our lawyers, and we follow their advice. We take the IRS regulations very seriously."

Posted by Don Byrd at 10:09 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Writing in today's USAToday On Religion column, law professor Richard Garnett argues that the relationship between religious belief and public policy is not predictable, that our national dialogue about that relationship is ongoing.

We continue to wrestle with, and to disagree about, faith and politics, church and state. The debate is both alive and lively, and informs policy topics from global warming and suburban sprawl to school choice and human cloning. It will not — and, in a free and diverse society, should not — end anytime soon.
...
To say faith speaks to politics is not to imagine that it provides clear, authoritative answers to complicated policy questions. There are plenty of good reasons for reasonable, faithful believers to decide that it is unwise for church leaders to address difficult political questions, particularly when they are questions — as most are — about which reasonable, faithful believers can disagree.

Religious commitments could and should animate our entire lives, but they will not always neatly dictate a particular policy.

Posted by Don Byrd at 11:31 PM | Permalink</