Updating a story from earlier this week, a the Jackson City School Board in Ohio voted to fight in court demands that a portrait depicting Christ be removed from a Middle School's hallway. The Columbus Dispatch reports the Board has come up with a clever explanation for why the painting is not an unconstitutional government promotion of religion:

The school board of this southeastern Ohio community asserted at its meeting last night that Hi-Y, a student club, owns the painting — not the school district — and that its display is legal as “private speech.”
...
The school board voted 4-0 last night to adopt a policy acknowledging a “limited public forum” that permits student groups to own and display portraits of “inspirational figures” at the high school and middle school, where the Jesus painting now hangs.

“It’s not government speech, it’s private speech,” Superintendent Phil Howard said.

If that is the case, that forum within the school should house pictures of any inspirational figure a student club decides to claim, from Lebron James and Lady Gaga to Charles Darwin and President Obama. Presumably, a framed portrait of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is now destined for that wall as well. 

Is that the answer?

Via Religion Clause, California's Orange County has settled a long-running lawsuit brought by the ACLU challenging the requirement that a Muslim woman remove her hijab while in a holding cell. 

Said plaintiff Souhair Khatib of Anaheim: "I praise Allah and thank Him that I live in a country where I can practice my religion freely. While not everyone understands Islam or what it requires of me, I'm grateful that the U.S. government protects my right to fulfill my duty to Allah, whether at work, on a public street or, yes, even in a sheriff's holding facility."

Law enforcement officers will be trained about ordering Muslim women to remove hijabs, and the county will pay $85,000 in damages, fees and court costs.

 In 2011, the 9th Circuit voted 11-0 to revive the case after a trial court ruled against Khatib.

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives is debating H.R. 592, a bill that would explicitly include houses of worship as eligible for FEMA grants following a disaster.

The Baptist Joint Committee sent a letter to lawmakers urging opposition to that legislation. From the text of the letter.

H.R. 592, which would authorize FEMA to provide houses of worship with direct grants of taxpayer funds, would flout well-established constitutional principles and harm religious liberty.

The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits government from providing outright grants or similar financial support to churches and other houses of worship. Supreme Court jurisprudence has been clear on this point, having repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that direct monetary contributions of taxpayer dollars to religious institutions create “special Establishment Clause dangers.” Simply put, we do not allow taxpayer dollars to build churches; we likewise should not allow taxpayer dollars to be used to rebuild churches.

The letter goes on to emphasize the many other suitable ways churches have to pay for rebuilding efforts without jeopardizing religious liberty, including insurance, private foundation grants, donations, and denominational support.

[UPDATE: Despite warnings from representatives like New York's Jerrold Nadler that the bill had "real constitutional problems," the House voted yes to include houses of worship in buildings eligible for FEMA grants, 354-72. The measures now goes to the Senate.]

The School Board of Jackson, Ohio will face an unusually large crowd at the meeting tonight when they discuss whether to heed the demands of a lawsuit and remove a painting depicting Jesus from a local Middle School, or to fight the issue in court. The Columbus Dispatch reports:

School officials expect a large crowd at tonight’s meeting as the board meets with representatives of the Liberty Institute, a nonprofit group based in Plano, Texas, that defends religious freedom, to learn its legal thinking and recommendations.
...
Dan Barker, a former minister who serves as vice president of the nonprofit group, said: “It boggles the mind in 2013, a public-school superintendent and school board would not understand that a devotional painting of Jesus, called ‘The Head of Christ’ — identical to millions hanging in churches and Sunday school classrooms across the country — may not be posted at the entrance of a middle school.”

Obviously, the context of the display may be the deciding factor in whether it violates the First Amendment or not. But either way, school officials should do the right thing and not use hallways of the school to honor and promote religious figureheads. A portrait of Christ is appropriate for churches or homes, not for schools funded by and for all taxpayers.

Texas Senators finally got their chance to question Board of Education Chairwoman Barbara Cargill in hearings Monday. Cargill was appointed head of the controversial body prior to the legislature's last session, but she will need to be confirmed to maintain the post. During her tenure, Cargill has been known for divisive tactics like asking curriculum experts about their political views, and remarking that the Board had 6 "true conservative Christian" members, among the 15 members.

In her hearing, Cargill tried to assure Senators she had put such behavior behind her.

[Senator Kirk] Watson likened that to a political litmus test. "They need to be what you would label 'a conservative?'" he asked.

"I don't ask that question anymore," Cargill responded. "I think that I've probably learned through the years, and the amount of time I've spend on the board now, I just look at resumes."

She also assured the Committee that she thinks creationism should be taught in homes and houses of worship, not science classrooms. Yet she's consistently argued for curriculum rules that would undermine the teaching of evolution.

Has she really learned some valuable lessons? To leave politics out of the curriculum review process, and religion out of the science classroom? Or will her confirmation just lead to more of the same old arguments? Stay tuned.

A 3rd Circuit decision released Friday declined to halt the Affordable Care Act for Conestoga, a for-profit secular corporation. Conestoga, like many other plaintiffs challenging the law's contraception coverage mandate, argues the requirement burdens its exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. By a 2-1 vote, the Appeals Court rejected that view, for a pair of reasons.

First, the Court said, any burden on the exercise of religion is too attenuated to qualify for RFRA protection, acknowledging, though that "the question presents a close call. In addition, the court said, a for-profit, secular corporation is not a "person" under RFRA and, thus, cannot exercise religion.

Both issues are shaping up to be sharply divided ones, the Supreme Court could choose to weigh in on. 

The contrary view to the 3rd Circuit's conclusion is expressed by Kevin Walsh at his blog, Walshlaw:

[A]rguing that If a for-profit corporation can discriminate on the basis of religion, why can’t a for-profit corporation perform some other act on the basis of religion? When Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., for example, decides to honor the Sabbath by staying closed on Sundays (and thereby forgoing profits the corporation would otherwise earn), that is a corporate act on the basis of religion–a corporate “exercise of religion.” And just as a corporate refusal, for religious reasons, to operate on a particular day is a corporate “exercise of religion” under federal law, so too is a corporate refusal, for religious reasons, to include particular drugs and devices in the group health plan offered by the corporation to its employees.

A judge in Ohio reminded convicted Amish hate-crimes leader Samuel Mullet, Sr. that the First Amendment has helped protect that religious community, but insisted it did not allow him to traumatize members of that faith he deems insufficient. Sentenced to 15 years in prison, Mullet insisted he was not a cult leader, and the actions of his followers - forcibly cutting off beards of others in the community - did not rise to the level of a hate crime. The judge disagreed.

"The victims were terrorized and traumatized," U.S. District Court Judge Dan Aaron Polster said in sentencing leader Sam Mullet Sr., 67, who sat without emotion.

The judge said the defendants had violated the constitutional rights protecting religious practice that had benefited them as Amish — such as an exemption from jury service and allowing Amish children to leave school at age 14.

"Each of you has received the benefits of that First Amendment," Polster said.

 AP reported an appeal from Mullet's attorneys is likely.

President Obama spoke this morning at the poorly named National Prayer Breakfast, his 5th as President. The breakfast is not a government-sponsored event, but you would never know that by scanning the high-profile crowd that includes Christians of both parties and at all levels of government, as well as religious leaders. 

In this year's address, the President announced that Joshua Dubois, who has headed up the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships since 2009, is stepping down. The Washington Post's Michelle Boorstein reports that Dubois will work on a book of devotionals based on those he prepared for the President.

You can watch his speech here, via C-Span-org. The President's remarks begin at about the 1 hour, 3 minute mark.The transcript is here.

The reviews are mostly positive regarding the contraceptive coverage rules proposed Friday by HHS. (You can read details about the new rules here.) Here is a brief roundup:

Associated Baptist Press' Bob Allen quotes BJC Director Brent Walker (whose statement you can read here), approving of a both/and solution regarding women's health and religious liberty.

The Washington Post editorial board calls the rule proposal a "sensible solution."

E.J. Dionne notes that the move appears to be an olive branch to Catholic leaders.

Think Progress quotes Catholic leaders who had been vociferous opponents of the mandate speaking approvingly of the new rules.

Meanwhile, columnist Michael Gerson refers to the change as nothing more than a "parlor trick."

The Christian Post also reports on the Becket Fund's view that the new rules do not address the concerns of the more than 40 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits challenging the mandate.