When Pastor Gerry Stoltzfoos was invited to open the Pennsylvania State House session with an invocation, he was shocked - shocked, I say! - to learn that the legislative body's guidelines prohibit sectarian prayer, in keeping with Supreme Court rulings protecting the religious liberty of all citizens (and to keep the good people of the Keystone State from having to fork over barrels of tax money to lawyers). Refusing to edit his prayer to remove specifically Christian references though, Stoltzfoos was given another option: pray at the State Senate, which has yet to enact similar protections.

[S]tate Sen. Rich Alloway, R-Chambersburg, invited Stoltzfoos -- a man he's never met -- to offer a prayer before the Senate opens session on July 29. . . .

The senator said he was "shocked" by the House policy and checked into whether the Senate has similar rules. After finding that the Senate does not enforce the same guidelines, Alloway said he extended the invitation to Stoltzfoos.

"I was a little disappointed when I saw what the House's policy was," Alloway said. "This government should not be antagonistic toward any religion."

Time and again, courts have ruled that legislative invocations constitute government speech and as such should not be used to promote a particular faith. Ceremonial prayers understandably raise eyebrows of people of faith. I certainly don't begrudge any member of the clergy who refuses to go along with government-sponsored, generic prayers. In fact it's entirely appropriate to decline such an invitation if you ask me.

But if we are going to have public meetings opened with prayer, the Constitution requires a compromise of sorts, to retain the appearance of government neutrality toward religion, and out of respect for the religious freedoms of the rich diversity of beliefs elected officials represent.

Alloway shouldn't be "shocked" that his cohorts in the House have sought to protect the taxpayer from the costly litigation that results from the violation of First Amendment freedoms. Constituents have a right to expect both their money and their liberties to be more competently ensured by elected officials. Here's hoping that by July 29, Stoltzfoos and Alloway have a change of heart, for the sake of taxpaying Pennsylvanians of all faiths.

AT USNews, Dan Gilgoff claims that faith has played "a larger role in Obama's White House so far than in any other President's."

Obama's most substantive move on religion so far has been launching his own version of Bush's faith-based initiative office, tasked with helping religious groups get federal dollars for social service projects for the needy. Less than one month into office, while presiding over two wars and a struggling economy, Obama took time to roll out his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Its expanded mission includes reducing the need for abortion, promoting responsible fatherhood, and facilitating interfaith dialogue, particularly with the Muslim world.
...
As it works to bring religious leaders and concerns into the policymaking process, the administration has probably paid even closer attention to faith-based symbolism and messaging.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has named current commissioner Leonard Leo to head the group. Felice Gaer has occupied the previous one-year term as chair. Press release is here.

“It’s a privilege to serve as chairman,” said Mr. Leo. “It is my hope that, through the Commission's continued work, we will help our government spot and address the many challenges facing the freedom of religion around the world. I look forward to working with my fellow commissioners to ensure that this basic human right is recognized as an essential and fully integrated component of any successful U.S. foreign, economic, or national security policy strategy.” 

Leo is Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society and has been Director of Catholic Outreach for the Republican National Committee.

A new study from Northwestern University professor David Figlio analyzes student achievement in an experimental voucher program in Florida. An editorial in today's St. Petersburg Times says there is no reason to continue the experiment.

[A] new study by a Northwestern University economics professor suggests vouchers don't deliver on that primary objective. Without evidence that vouchers give poor children a better education, there is no reason to continue this experiment. Vouchers do not appear to be providing a better education. They are stripping resources from public schools, and they violate the state Constitution
...
...David Figlio found students in the Corporate Tax Credit voucher program performed no better or worse academically than voucher-eligible students who chose to stay in public school.

Potentially historic energy legislation passed in the House to limit greenhouse gas emissions and address other issues of environmental sustainability also includes a specific provision allowing religious organizations to receive taxpayer subsidies to retrofit buildings. The Jewish Orthodox Union touts the addition.

The legislation will provide subsidies of up to 50 percent of the cost of retrofitting a building's energy systems, but had originally not included faith-based or other non-profit groups in the program. The Orthodox Union was one of the groups who convinced the drafters of the bill... to make them eligible for the subsidy.

"From new heating and air conditioning systems to lighting and windows, this legislation will assist our communal institutions to save costs, reduce energy use, and aid the environment," said Orthodox Union director of public policy Nathan Diament. "All of this has been proposed and passed in a way completely consistent with Constitutional principles."

Bill HR 2454 is headed to the Senate.

The Supreme Court today decided not to hear the appeal in a case involving a school Bible club in Washington State. That leaves in place the appeals court ruling affirming Kentridge High School's right to bar the Truth Bible Club for its exclusive policies.

The school... cited the group's name, the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club and that allowing the club in would bring religion into the school. The club's would-be founders then sued the Kent School District, claiming discrimination.

An earlier post is here.

In recent years, critics have charged that America's foreign policy apparatus has lacked the knowledge and training in religions of the world to understand and act appropriately and effectively when dealing with worldwide concerns. This critique makes perfect sense and is well justified. From diplomatic engagement to military interaction, US efforts since 2001 have at times misinterpreted, wrongly anticipated, or simply lacked proper concern for the religious underpinnings holding together - or tearing apart - other cultures.

This is not merely a matter of being nice to our neighbors (not that there's anything wrong with that). A new book by Thomas Farr, World of Faith and Freedom (reviewed here by Dallas Morning News' William McKenzie), argues that our national interest is at stake in our ability to understand the relationship between religion and societies around the world. 

It is in that context - the need for enhanced religious literacy and awareness - that I read the State Department's news of a new Office of the United States Special Representative to Muslim Communities. 

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has asked Farah Pandith to head the new Office of the United States Special Representative to Muslim Communities. Special Representative Farah Pandith and her staff (S/SRMC) will be responsible for executing the Administration’s efforts to engage with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level.

Associated Baptist Press' Rob Marus looks at the Obama Administration's cautious method of addressing church-state controversies.

[T]he most significant changes in the way religion and the government relate may come gradually as Obama—whose agenda currently is dominated by significant economic and foreign-policy woes—deals on a case-by-case basis with laws, programs and court cases.

And his most lasting legacy in the area church-state relations may come long after he has left office—as his appointees to the federal courts begin ruling on cases dealing with religious liberty.

Faced with the scrutiny of church-state observers crying foul, Liberty University has altered its policy governing the recognition and official support of student political groups. After suspending the Student Democrats due to the platform of the Democratic National Committee, the school has decided to change course. Instead of reinstating the Democrats, however, now all partisan political organizations on campus will be ineligible for University funding and deemed "unofficial."

Of course, Chancellor Falwell seems to have left himself an out to continue allowing Liberty to offer more support for certain candidates, despite its tax-exempt status. (My emph. below)

Falwell said the previously suspended College Democrats “wouldn’t have to do anything” to be recognized under the new policy. Along with other stipulations, the policy allows unofficial clubs to use the university’s name, but they will not receive any college funding.

Also unofficial clubs that support candidates whose views are contrary to the university’s Christian mission will not lose their status, but will not be able to use the college’s facilities to endorse such candidates, Falwell said.

So some clubs (I wonder which?) may be able to use official Liberty University facilities to endorse certain candidates? But some other clubs (speculating....rhymes with Shmemocrats?) will not be so allowed?

The new policy, insofar as it leaves student political groups on equal terms, is the right formula for a religious school that claims a tax exemption and is barred from political campaigning. But suggesting there will still be more resources allowed for certain candidates but denying to others is a step backwards, and perhaps an even more blatant affront to the spirit of electioneering regulations than the previous blanket regulation of partisan activity. It remains to be seen just how Falwell intends to implement, or not, this aside about using the school's facilities for candidate endorsement. Stay tuned.