Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) signed into law last week a bill that protects students, teachers and school officials who use "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannakuh" greetings. 

The San Antonio Express-News has more:

House Bill 308 by Bohac and Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville — dubbed the “Merry Christmas bill” by some backers — specifies that a school district may allow students and staff to offer “traditional greetings” associated with winter celebrations, specifying they include “Merry Christmas,” “Happy Hanukkah” and “happy holidays.”

The new law also says a district may display scenes and symbols including a menorah, nativity scene or Christmas tree if the display includes a scene or symbol of more than one religion, or of a religion and at least one secular symbol.

It says the display may not include a message that encourages adherence to a particular religious belief.

While the law is designed to relieve school officials of anxiety over church-state litigation, are there examples of actual lawsuits filed over the mere use of those phrases in school?  Problems arise not when students say "Merry Christmas," but when public schools are used to celebrate a particular religious holiday and give the impression that the school endorses or is affiliated with the religious view expressed in the celebration. Taking reasonable steps to protect against that danger makes sense. And is probably good manners.

If school officials do go too far into expressions of support for a religious view, in violation of the First Amendment's church-state separation requirements, no state legislation can prohibit litigation. Not even in Texas. 

You can read House Bill 308 here.

Via Religion Clause, a House Oversight subcommittee yesterday held a hearing on the government's implementation of the International Religious Freedom Act. That legislation, enacted in 1998, established the US Commission on International Religious Freedom as well as the Religious Freedom Ambassador at-Large position within the State Department. Since then, questions over the role of these congressionally-mandated entities in U.S. foreign policy has caused some strain between the Executive and Legislative branches. (The Commission and State Department each issue separate international religious freedom reports, the Commission often makes recommendations regarding policy toward a country that the State Department does not follow, etc.) During recent budget negotiations, some in the U.S. Senate strongly considered de-authorizing the Commission altogether. 

It is not completely surprising, then, that some members of Congress feel the Administration is not making proper use of IRFA. The Witnesses included Thomas Farr, a former Director of the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, who suggested the goal of using U.S. foreign policy to improve religious liberty around the world is simply not working.

[I]t would be difficult to name a single country in the world over the past fifteen years where American religious freedom policy has helped to reduce religious persecution or to increase religious freedom in any substantial or sustained way.

In fact, the Pew Reports make it clear that in most of the countries where the United States has in recent years poured blood, treasure, and diplomatic resources (such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, and Russia), levels of religious freedom are declining and religious persecution is rising.

Some of these countries have been on the IRFA-mandated list of particularly severe violators, the so-called “countries of particular concern.” IRFA requires that this list be issued annually but the Obama administration has not done so since 2011. Congress, it seems, takes little notice of this omission (although the US Commission on International Religious Freedom has voiced its concern).

 You can watch the hearing and read the testimony of witnesses at the Committee's hearing site here.

The White House Tuesday released a policy statement responding to provisions it finds objectionable in the Defense Authorization Act approved by the House Armed Services Committee. Among the disagreements, the Obama Administration opposes a recent amendment (see earlier post) that requires the military to allow broader speech and conduct motivated by religious belief.  

Expansion and Implementation of Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members:

The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, "actions and speech" reflecting the "conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member." By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment.

Oklahoma license plates featuring a Native American sculpture may amount to an inappropriate state endorsement of religion, according to a 10th Circuit decision, overturning a trial court's dismissal of the complaint. The plaintiff, Keith Cressman, is a Christian who argues the requirement to display the image constitutes a violation of his First Amendment rights. The state will not allow him to cover the image, and charges an additional fee for any other plate.

The lower court threw out Mr. Cressman's complaint without allowing discovery, finding that the image is not perceived by others as a specific message. The Appeals Court disagreed that the court could make that determination without allowing the discovery process to go forward. From the opinion (pdf):

Mr. Cressman has plausibly alleged that the image on the standard Oklahoma license plate conveys a particularized message that others would likely understand and therefore constitutes symbolic speech that qualifies for First Amendment protection. In addition, he has plausibly alleged that he is compelled to speak because the image conveys a religious/ideological message, covering up the image poses a threat of prosecution, and his only alternative to displaying the image is to pay additional fees for specialty license plates that do not contain the image. The allegations in his complaint therefore plausibly allege a compelled speech claim...

The case goes back to the trial court where issues of discovery and preliminary injunction will be determined.

The National Coalition for Public Education sent a letter to leaders of the Senate Education Committee urging them to oppose efforts to insert school voucher funding into the Education bill. The Baptist Joint Committee is one of 56 organizations that signed the letter, which laid out the many reasons to oppose school vouchers. It notes "voucher programs have proven ineffective, lack accountability to taxpayers, and deprive students of rights provided to public school students." 

The Coalition spells out to the Committee the religious freedom problem:

Voucher programs primarily fund private religious schools. To both protect the religious freedom of taxpayers and the autonomy of religious schools, many of our coalition members object to taxpayer money being used to fund religious education.

Along with the many substantive reasons like those the Coalition explains, I would add this: the American people don't like them. Voters consistently reject voucher programs when given the chance at the ballot box. So, why do lawmakers continually return to the idea?

In Oregon, more parents citing religious reasons are opting out of vaccinations for their kindergarten-aged children than in any other state in the U.S. The state senate, concerned that non-medical exemptions have become too common, has responded by passing a law that would require parents to be made aware of the medical benefits of vaccination. The purpose of the regulation is to encourage vaccination thorough awareness. But many are concerned that the result is to stifle religious liberty.

Republican Sen. Tim Knopp of Bend argued that there should be a specific religious exemption.

“What we are doing here is that in an attempt to do something wonderful, we are trampling on the Constitution — and that is absolutely wrong,” said Sen. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseburg.
...
“We are stomping on the right of a person to dictate their own health care,” [Senator Fred] Girod said. “We are tromping on the right of a parent to dictate what is best for their kids.”

Is it a burden to require consultation with a medical professional on a matter than potentially impacts public health?The measure is Senate Bill 132. It is on to the state house.

Last week, the House Armed Services Committee voted on amendments to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Amendments that passed included one that allows service members to express personal beliefs provided they do not cause actual harm to others or are restricted by military necessity (current law disallows expression that "threatens" to harm others). Another deals with the contentious issue of chaplain prayers.

The Air Force Times reports:

By voice vote, the committee passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., allowing chaplains to [follow] the traditions, expressions and religious exercises of their faith. That means, for example, to be able to complete a prayer “in Jesus’ name.”

Chaplains already have the right under existing policy to follow practices of their own faith during a religious service, but Jones’ amendment expands this to include situations when a chaplain is called upon to lead a prayer.

The Committee also rejected an amendment that would have authorized chaplain-like counselors for atheist and secularist personnel.

By now, you have probably seen or heard about video of the ripped-up graduation speech in South Carolina. There, a student speaker defied the rules and led a prayer instead of giving his approved remarks. I've already reached my yearly quota of graduation prayer rants. But please indulge me just a couple of thoughts to sum up my reaction.

Graduation is a time of celebration for students, families, teachers and school officials. Every student who earns a diploma deserves that moment of recognition for the hard work it represents. At public school commencements, we gather as a community across economic, racial, ethnic and religious divides to celebrate together. Each student and family brings their own story of accomplishment leading to that ceremony. A great triumph of American public education is that regardless of a student's background, a diploma is achievable.

Many Americans of good will fail to comprehend why a public school graduation ceremony cannot be consecrated the way they always denote important moments of life: with devoted Christian prayer. The reason is simple: Every student deserves the chance to experience that moment according to the conscience of their own religious beliefs, and in a way that pays tribute to their own unique journey. No student should be forced to receive a diploma framed by prayer to a God he or she does not worship.

That is not to say we de-value prayer and religion in public school. Just the opposite. We honor the prayerful journey of each student and family when we refrain from grafting the religious view of one on to the celebration of all, even when it is the majority view. In so doing, we respect the role prayer and faith plays for all in attendance, and acknowledge its capacity to define a moment.

When school officials demand of graduation speeches that they not become prayers, they do their best to honor the unique story of every student and family whose achievement is being recognized. When a graduation speaker flaunts those rules and exploits the occasion to deliver a distinctly Christian prayer, he frames with his faith the celebration of all in attendance, regardless of theirs.

School administrators in Liberty, South Carolina say there is little they can do at this point about 18-year-old valedictorian Roy Costner's decision to forgo his prepared remarks at the Liberty High School graduation ceremony in favor of a recitation of The Lord's Prayer. They are probably right. His transgression - which some are calling courageous - was likely more mischievous than it was illegal. Either way, it strikes me as sadly disrespectful - of the occasion, of the others in attendance who do not share his views, and even of the Lord's Prayer itself (though that is another post). What should have been about each graduate's achievement became instead about one graduate's defiance and disregard for the faith of others.

More selfish, perhaps, than courageous.

The Ohio House Education Committee is set to consider legislation that would authorize public schools to allow students release time for religious education off campus. HB 171 specifies students must provide their own transportation, and that no public funds may be used to support the courses. Students would receive school credit for the courses.

Cincinnati.com reports (emphasis added):

If the bill becomes law, Ohio would be the only state other than South Carolina offering school credit for outside religious classes. Democratic and Republican bill sponsors say they want to encourage teenagers to take religious classes.“It’s an attempt to reinstall some of the same things that made this country great,” said Rep. Bill Patmon, a Democrat from Cleveland who is one of the bill’s two main sponsors.

The safeguards in place may be helpful - this program is voluntary, with no mixing of public funds allowed, and students are not allowed to substitute religious courses for core requirements. But the purpose behind the legislation is clear and troublesome. Of course, you know what "reinstall the things that made this country great" means in the lexicion of those who oppose church-states separation... prayer and religious indoctrination in school. 

The bill specifies that school officials must use "secular criteria" in determining which course offerings qualify for credit, but it fails to indicate the specifics of those criteria, or explain how secular criteria can be used to evaluate overtly religious content. This creates complications and entanglements for the public school system. If the criteria must be secular, why not just require the content to be secular as well, and leave the religious education outside the public school system?