Religious and civil liberties groups are encouraging Kansas Governor Sam Brownback not to sign a bill passed by the legislature seeming to target Islamic Sharia law.

The measure bans Kansas courts and administrative agencies from basing rulings on foreign laws or legal systems.

It doesn't mention Sharia law, but several senators said that was their concern.
...
But state Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, said the bill was unnecessary because courts already are ruled by United State laws and the U.S. Constitution. He said the bill was based on intolerance and fear and would make people think only those with a Christian, religious-right perspective were welcome in Kansas.

[Council on American-Islamic Relations Director Nihad] Awad said the legislation could infringe on the right to choose Islamic marriage contracts, implement Islamic wills or to be buried according to one's religious beliefs. It could also negatively impact the validation of international adoptions and foreign marriages.

Baptist Joint Committee Counsel Holly Hollman discussed the issue of fear-driven anti-Sharia legislation last year. The 10th Circuit invalidated an Oklahoma bill specifically targeting Sharia several months ago.

The Washington Post reports the Obama campaign has named Michael Wear to head up its faith outreach effort. Wear has been working with White House Faith-Based Partnerships Director Joshua Dubois, who held the post during the 2008 campaign. Just one year out of college, Wear's most talked-about characteristic so far? His age.

At the White House, Wear has been involved in a wide range of religious issues, with particular responsibility for adoption and foster care. He also sought to build connections with young evangelicals, including those involved in the campaign to capture Ugandan guerilla leader Joseph Kony.

“Michael has spent a number of years in the faith-based office so he knows the territory,” said Amy Sullivan, author of “The Party Faithful,” a book on religion and American politics. “But the Republicans would put somebody senior with years and years of experience and a big Rolodex in that position. And I guess that tells you something about how Democrats still view faith outreach and its importance.”

Will Wear be an active, highly connected member of the campaign, turning religious leaders into essential campaign emissaries, as Sullivan suggests Republicans would? Would that really be a good thing?

On Friday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into a law a bill allowing any employer self-identifying in its articles of incorporation as a "religiously affiliated employer" to refuse contraception coverage in its health care plans. Previously, the state allowed only certain religious organizations to claim an exemption from the requirement. Now, that accommodation is much broader in the state.

"In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving religious freedom to which were all constitutionally entitled," Brewer said in a prepared statement. "Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the First Amendment."

As I posted last week, a federal judge in Virginia is urging parties in a Ten Commandments dispute to think outside the box to arrive at a solution. One of his suggestions was the possibility of removing from public school displays the commandments that are explicitly religious in character, leaving a display of only six Commandments, (which brings to mind a scene from Mel Brooks' History of the World, Part I). 

Church-state experts weighing in don't sound optimistic that this would be a practical or acceptable answer to the problem. The Roanoke Times reports:

Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center, said the compromise is unlikely to appeal to either side.

"I don't think it cures the problem," Haynes said. "In fact, it may make it worse, because for many Christians, to somehow edit the commandments would be an offense to their faith."

At the same time, he said, those who believe strongly in the separation of church and state would be equally troubled.

"It's the worst of both worlds," Haynes said. "It keeps the scriptures on the walls as a government-sanctioned message, but it truncates the scriptures and distorts their message."

Meanwhile, columnist Ted Biondo suggests the plaintiffs challenging the display are responsible for cutting the religion out of the Commandments. But, it's the display's defenders that argue the Ten Commandments' historical, legal significance (not its religious significance) justifies the posting. So which side is secularizing this sacred text?

As we gear up to the 2012 election, a recurring feature of this blog will be excerpts from candidates' own words on the campaign trail. Readers, I need your help! As candidates for office in your state or congressional district discuss religious liberty issues, send those comments my way. Whether you support or oppose the candidate, my goal will be to provide a broad picture of the religious liberty discussion across the country.Sometimes it is a central issue, sometimes more indirect. Either way, this can be a forum for surveying candidates' views on religious liberty and the intersections combining faith with politics, and faith with governance.

Last week saw both President Obama and Republican presumptive nominee Mitt Romney have occasion to mention religious liberty, in different contexts. from President Obama, discussing his decision to support the legalization of same-sex marriage in an interview with ABCNews' Robin Roberts:

I had hesitated on gay marriage-- in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and-- other-- elements that we take for granted. And-- I was sensitive to the fact that-- for a lot of people, you know, the-- the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.
...
And-- you know, one of the things that you see in-- a state like New York that-- ended up-- legalizing same-sex marriages-- was I thought they did a good job in engaging the religious community. Making it absolutely clear that what we're talking about are civil marriages and civil laws.

That they're respectful of religious liberty, that-- you know, churches and other faith institutions-- are still gonna be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are-- what they recognize.

Mitt Romney, speaking at Liberty University's commencement:

The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate. It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with.  Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.

But from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man. Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution. And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.
 
Religious freedom opens a door for Americans that is closed to too many others around the world. But whether we walk through that door, and what we do with our lives after we do, is up to us.

In the first ever televised presidential debate in Egypt, the 2 leading candidates, Amr Moussa (former foreign minister) and Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh (formerly of the Muslim Brotherhood), answered questions about the role of religion in government, their views on political parties based on religious identity, and about religious liberty generally (among, of course, many other issues). Here are some clips from The Guardian's comprehensive coverage.

5.04pm ET/10.04pm BST: Cat's out of the bag, Abul-Futouh admits he wants to implement Sharia law after Moussa faces him with it.

There is a difference of opinion between "the principles of Sharia" being the basis of legislation as stated in Article 2 of the constitution and the "rulings of Sharia" which is the Sharia bylaws.

Moussa points out that Abul-Futouh wants to implement the rulings of Sharia and Abul-Futouh quips "of course".
...
6.36pm ET/11.36pm BST: The following question is about the status of the Muslim Brotherhood, religious-based parties and civil liberties and minority rights.

Abul-Futoh says that the Brotherhood has no special status and will be treated as any other NGO. All must respect the law and not work outside it. "I am against religious parties in the sense that membership is reserved only for a certain religion," he says. "As for parties that respect Islamic reference, that is in the constitution. I am against the term 'minorities' – Copts are equal citizens like all other Egyptians, there will be no discrimination."

Moussa says: "The Muslim Brotherhood is no longer banned, but is still not yet legal and can easily be classified as a legal body. I'm against religious parties because discrimination is inherent in it. This causes division amongst citizens."

 The election is scheduled for May 23 and 24.

Via Religion Clause, the Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled the Governor's Day of Prayer proclamations violate the state's Constitution. Here are a few excerpts from the opinion:

There is also no indication in the record that the Colorado Day of Prayer has become a secular institution like Christmas or Thanksgiving. On the contrary, its purpose is avowedly religious.
...

“Prayer” is a religious exercise. Wallace, 472 U.S. at 58-59. Thus, because an implicit, if not explicit, call to prayer is the focus of each proclamation, we conclude that the six Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations have predominantly religious content.
...

Because of the explicit reference to, and sole focus on, prayer, the six proclamations are distinguishable from the forms of “ceremonial deism” used to solemnize certain governmental proceedings that do not violate the Establishment Clause.
...
[W]e conclude that the “ostensible and predominant purpose” of these proclamations is to “advanc[e] religion.” Id. at 860. As a result, they violate the Preference Clause because (1) they constitute “preferential treatment to religion in general,”
...
Looking through the eyes of a reasonable observer, we conclude that the Colorado Day of Prayer proclamations at issue here have the primary or principal effect of endorsing religious beliefs because they “convey[] or attempt[] to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred."

For years, Texas pseudo-historian David Barton has been on a mission to convince Americans that the Founding Fathers did not believe in the separation of church and state, and intended the United States to be a "Christian nation." Under Barton's view, taken to its logical conclusion, the American experiment is an exercise in Christianity. Every time the rights of a religious minority are upheld, or government officials are criticized for using their official jobs to promote Christianity, the Founders' intent is undermined. 

That story is, of course, not true. As BJC Director Brent Walker wrote a few years ago,  "[Barton's] work...is laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact." Sadly, though, Barton has managed to convince many who want to hear it. His influence among those who oppose the separation of church and state has only grown.

Hopefully, his work will receive renewed scrutiny following the publication of a new book called "Getting Jefferson Right: Fact-Checking Claims About Our Third President" (Kindle edition), written by a pair of professors from Grove City College, a Christian institution in Pennsylvania. AU's Rob Boston is reading it.

I started the book last night after dinner and couldn’t put it down. To be blunt, it’s a hammer. Throckmorton and Coulter look at numerous pieces of disinformation spread by Barton and give the real story, usually backing up their claims with words from Jefferson’s own writings.
...
So why did Throckmorton and Coulter write it? Their answer is remarkably refreshing: “The duty of Christians as scholars is first to get the facts correct…. Engaging in scholarship as a Christian is not about who is on our team; it should have as an aim of uncovering the facts about a subject, whether it is a historical figure or a theory of social science, and following the data where they lead.”

The book is now on my summer reading list. I'm especially glad to hear the authors associate their Christian faith with the need to tell the truth, rather than a need to promote as truth whatever story promotes Christianity. There is, though, another misguided layer to Barton's work beneath the historical inaccuracies: the idea that Christianity is indeed furthered by being placed at the head of America's national identity. The Kingdom of Christ is bigger than that. Its Truth lives in the soul freedom of its followers, not the official stamp of approval from a national government. 

Neither Barton's means nor his ends do the cause of Christ any favors. Even if his story were true, it would not uplift the faith. Christ needs no governmental platform for His message of Peace, Love and Truth.

In an interview with ABCNews' Robin Robert, President Obama expressed for the first time his belief that same-sex marriage should be legal. At the same time, White House talking points are emphasizing that church decisions regarding marriage would be unaffected.

We make it absolutely clear that we are talking about civil marriages and civil laws. This isn’t a federal issue. We must be respectful of religious liberty, that churches and other faith institutions are still going to be able to make determinations about what their sacraments are, what they recognize.

That same-sex marriage may become legal is not to say that it may become mandatory. Churches would be free as always to decide policies on whom to marry.