You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2010.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Commercial Use of Part of Religious High School Not Protected By RLUIPA
In New Life Worship Center v. Town of Smithfield Zoning Board of Review, 2010 R.I. Super. 
LEXIS 101 (RI Super. Ct., July 7, 2010), a Rhode Island trial court upheld the decision of a town zoning board to bar use of space in a high school operated by New Life Worship Center, a religious organization, for use as a commercial fitness center and dance studio. The court rejected New Life’s claims under RLUIPA and Rhode Island’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act that denial of a special use permit improperly created a substantial burden on the organization’s exercise of religion. The court said in part:
The inability of New Life to operate the fitness center and dance studio as a commercial business to generate funds to support the parish and the building of the high school does not pose any significant pressure on the members of New Life. The members of the church are not being asked to conform their behavior in practicing their religion, nor are the religious activities of the church being compromised…. [T]he denial of the special use permit to protect the students of the high school from the regular entry into the building by members of the general public is a compelling governmental interest. The Zoning Board is not denying New Life the opportunity to practice ancillary activities on the property, but rather disallowing open access to the high school building in fear of the potential danger to the students.
http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/07/commercial-use-of-part-of-religious.html
By The Associated Press
07.12.10 FORT WAYNE, Ind. — A Fort Wayne schools official says the district likely will stop sending students to a religious-instruction program on school grounds that triggered a federal lawsuit.
School Board President Mark GiaQuinta told The Journal Gazette for a July 9 story that it would be irresponsible to defend an issue that courts have already decided. A similar 2008 lawsuit against Huntington schools was settled after a judge granted the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana a preliminary injunction.
“I think it’s clear that the courts have determined what we are doing violates the Constitution,” said GiaQuinta, who is an attorney. “Legally, it’s already been decided; academically it’s inconsistent with our goal of academic achievement; and fiscally, it’s irresponsible to defend a case that’s already been decided. I would say that’s strike one, two and three. The board members I’ve spoken to — to a person — have expressed the same thing.”
A Haley Elementary School third-grader’s parents sued the district last week in U.S. District Court in Fort Wayne, saying she was sent to Bible classes in trailers on school property without their permission. The ACLU of Indiana, which represents the girl’s parents, argues the school violated the First Amendment clause against establishment of religion and the parents’ 14th Amendment right to provide for their own child’s religious education. The suit asks a judge to declare the program unconstitutional and ban it from operating on school property.
Associated Churches of Fort Wayne and Allen County, since 1944, has offered the weekly classes in which students learn the Bible during school-day sessions in mobile classrooms that are nicknamed “little churches on wheels,” or in some cases at a nearby church building. The group’s website says 80% of local schoolchildren in grades 3, 4 and 5 take part.
ACLU legal director Ken Falk said the suit likely could be dismissed once the school district’s attorney provides assurances the program won’t be offered on school grounds. He said on July 9 that he had not yet heard from the district’s attorney.
Courts have long held that students have the right to exercise their religion in release-time programs as long as they are held off school property, Falk said.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=23150
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — Alliance Defense Fund attorneys sent a letter Monday to University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign officials on behalf of a popular, highly regarded professor who was fired for explaining the position of the Roman Catholic Church on human sexual behavior to members of his Introduction to Catholicism class.
“A university cannot censor professors’ speech–including classroom speech related to the 
topic of the class–merely because certain ideas ‘offend’ an anonymous student,” said ADF Senior Counsel David French. “To fire a professor for teaching the actual subject matter of his course is outrageous. It’s ridiculous that a school would fire a professor without even giving him a chance to defend himself when he simply taught Catholic beliefs in a class about Catholic beliefs.”
Dr. Kenneth Howell, who had been teaching at the university since 2001, was relieved of his duties based in part on an anonymous complaint sent via e-mail to university officials. The e-mail was sent by the friend of an anonymous student who claimed to be “offended” by a May 4 email Howell sent to students elaborating on a class discussion on Catholic beliefs about sexual behavior. The May 4 e-mail from Howell addressed a May 3 lecture in which he explained how the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and homosexual conduct. He properly stated the church’s teaching that homosexual conduct is morally wrong, framing the issue in the context of natural moral law.
ADF attorneys see Howell’s case as part of an ominous trend on campus. Mike Adams’ ongoing suit against officials from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, and June Sheldon’s lawsuit against officials from San Jose City College demonstrate that professors can be punished for merely expressing their viewpoint, and now, for even teaching the very material that is the subject of a class.
“The First Amendment protects the ability of faculty to speak freely, especially when the material is of direct relevance to the class,” added French. “Professors’ careers cannot be made to stand or fall based on the emotions of intolerant, anonymous students who do not yet understand that opposing viewpoints exist within a free society.”
http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/4113
ARTICLE reflects opposing view from NCSECULAR ORG:
On June 21st the artwork below started appearing on billboards across North Carolina, from the mountains to the sea. These billboards are appearing in the following areas: Asheville, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Charlotte, Raleigh, and Wilmington. 
This campaign is intended as a consciousness-raising effort to point out how every U.S. citizen who doesn’t believe in a monotheistic god is being “officially” marginalized, disrespected, and discriminated against by the insertion of “under God” in the Pledge, by the supplanting of our former de facto national motto–E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One)–with “In God We Trust,” by language in certain state constitutions (like the one in NC) which restricts anyone that doesn’t believe in a monotheistic god from holding public office, and in many other ways.
We believe the evidence clearly demonstrates that our Founders intended to establish a secular government, one that separated church from state. We believe the kinds of officially sanctioned marginalization and discrimination covered above is unconstitutional, that it violates the intentions of the Founders, and that it is fundamentally unfair.
All we are asking is that every citizen give every other citizen the same kind of consideration they expect for themselves, and that we all try to live up to the spirit of the ideals our Founders gave us of liberty and justice for all.
Some of the member groups of the North Carolina Secular Association will be participating in this campaign. Below is a list of these groups press releases for each billboard location:
The cost of this campaign is over $15,000.00. The campaign is being funded through donations from the individual groups involved and FreeThoughtAction, a national freethought marketing organization.
http://ncsecular.org/ad.html
Article reflects opposing view from American Humanist website.
Article “In Good We Trust,” Says New Humanist Billboard
Washington, DC, April 12, 2010
Last week the American Humanist Association (AHA) unveiled a new billboard in Moscow, 
Idaho, the latest of a series of billboards that have appeared in the in area since last year. The new billboard features the familiar image of a U.S. quarter–but with one important revision: in place of the national motto, the coin reads “In Good We Trust.” The AHA’s website address also appears in bold letters to the right of the coin’s image.
“This billboard nicely sums up two of the main messages of the American Humanist Association,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the AHA. “First, that you don’t have to believe in God to be good–in fact, humanists and other nontheists see being good as one of the most important of responsibilities in our one and only life. Second, that church and state should remain separate for the benefit of us all.” Speckhardt argued that “In Good We Trust” is a more inclusive and appropriate sentiment than the “In God We Trust” motto, which runs afoul the First Amendment.
The display is the fifth such billboard that has gone up in the Moscow area, following billboards which have read, “Don’t Believe in God? You are Not Alone,” “Want a Better World? Prayer Not Required,” “Million are Good Without God” and “No God? No Problem!” All are part of an extensive advertising campaign to spread awareness about being good without God. An image of the display can be found here: http://americanhumanist.org/system/storage/29/1499/ingoodwetrust-sky.jpg .
“Too many think that morality is the exclusive domain of the religious–we’re here to prove that assumption wrong,” said Speckhardt. “We also want to reach out to other nontheists to let them know there is a community out there for them.”
The billboard will run on Highway 95, just south of Moscow near the Sweet Avenue cross street, facing northbound traffic.
David Niose, president of the American Humanist Association, pointed out that the official national motto had an unsavory beginning. “The adoption of the ‘In God We Trust’ motto came at the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism in the 1950s, and it is unfortunate that we still cling to such religious rhetoric today. E pluribus unum, the Latin phrase for ‘out of many, one,’ would be a much more appropriate motto. It reflects the true character of American society and government.”
The American Humanist Association billboard campaign is part of a larger effort to spread awareness about nontheism. Other like-minded organizations such as the United Coalition of Reason have placed billboards in numerous cities across the country. In addition, the AHA ran bus ads that read “No God? …No Problem!” in Washington, DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco during the 2009 winter holiday season.
The American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org) advocates for the rights and viewpoints of humanists. Founded in 1941 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., its work is extended through more than 100 local chapters and affiliates across America.
Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in God.
http://www.americanhumanist.org/news/details/2010-04-in-good-we-trust-says-new-humanist-billboard
| Article: ACLJ
Defending National Day of Prayer |
We are once again in federal court defending the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. This  time representing members of Congress in a critically important amicus brief filed in a federal appeals court. As you know, a federal district court in Wisconsin recently ruled in favor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s claim that the National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
This ruling is clearly flawed and out of step with more than 200 years of history, Supreme Court precedent, and multiple acts of Congress. The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. We filed an amicus brief on behalf of 67 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate – both Republican and Democrat. We’ve also filed on behalf of thousands of members of the Committee to Protect the National Day of Prayer. This brief clearly demonstrates that the district court’s ruling should be overturned. While it seems absurd that the National Day of Prayer could have been found unconstitutional in the first place, it is vital that the appeals court overturns this lower court decision. This is a case that is being followed closely and the ramifications of the outcome of this case will have dramatic ramifications – the future of the time-honored tradition of a national day to pray for our nation hangs in the balance. Our brief includes a lengthy appendix detailing the robust history of prayer proclamations, including presidential proclamations dating back to George Washington. It’s also significant to note that James Madison, who authored the First Amendment that is at the center of this challenge, himself issued four similar proclamations of prayer. You can read our amicus brief here. History and the law are clearly on the side of the National Day of Prayer. We will continue fighting to make sure that the courts recognize this fact. We’re delighted to represent 67 members of Congress in this brief at the appeals court level. We want to thank Rep. Randy Forbes of Virginia for taking the lead on this Congressional effort. Rep. Forbes and Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina co-chair the Congressional Prayer Caucus. The complete oflist is posted in alphabetical order below: Rep. Randy Forbes Sen. Sam Brownback Sen. James Inhofe Sen. Mike Johanns Sen. Roger Wicker Rep. Robert Aderholt Rep. Todd Akin Rep. Rodney Alexander Rep. Michelle Bachmann Rep. Spencer Bachus Rep. Gresham Barrett Rep. Roscoe Bartlett Rep. Rob Bishop Rep. Marsha Blackburn Rep. John Boehner Rep. John Boozman Rep. Kevin Brady Rep. Paul Broun Rep. Eric Cantor Rep. Michael Conoway Rep. Geoff Davis Rep. Lincoln Davis Rep. Mary Fallin Rep. John Fleming Rep. Jeff Fortenberry Rep. Virginia Foxx Rep. Trent Franks Rep. Scott Garrett Rep. Phil Gingrey Rep. Louie Gohmert Rep. Gregg Harper Rep. Wally Herger Rep. Pete Hoekstra Rep. Bob Inglis Rep. Walter Jones Rep. Jim Jordan Rep. Steve King Rep. John Kline Rep. Doug Lamborn Rep. Robert Latta Rep. Donald Manzullo Rep. Kevin McCarthy Rep. Michael McCaul Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Rep. Patrick McHenry Rep. Mike McIntyre Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers Rep. Gary Miller Rep. Jeff Miller Rep. Jerry Moran Rep. Sue Myrick Rep. Randy Neugebauer Rep. Pete Olson Rep. Mike Pence Rep. Joe Pitts Rep. Ted Poe Rep. Tom Price Rep. Phil Roe Rep. Jean Schmidt Rep. Heath Shuler Rep. Adrian Smith Rep. Lamar Smith Rep. Glenn Thompson Rep. Todd Tiahrt Rep. Lynn Westmoreland Rep. Joe Wilson Rep. Frank Wolf http://www.aclj.org/LegislativeAlert/Read.aspx?GUID=7ce96c01-ae89-4993-8e43-764b7d0b878e |
ANN ARBOR, MI – The arraignment of four Christian missionaries on criminal charges will take place on Monday, July 12, 2010 at 8:00 a.m. in the 19th Judicial District Court located at 16077 Michigan Avenue in Dearborn, Michigan. This is the next step in what has been described as police enforcement of Sharia law in a city dominated by a large Muslim population.
To the jeers and shouts of “Allah Akbar” by the Muslim crowd, the four Christian missionaries were arrested and thrown in jail on June 18, 2010 by Dearborn Police officers at the Annual Arab International Festival held in Dearborn. One of the arrested missionaries was Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, MD, who was engaged in peaceful dialogue with several Muslim youths. The other three missionaries, who were merely videotaping the conversation, had their cameras and other equipment illegally seized before police arrested them as well.
Police refused requests by the missionaries to view the video at the scene of their arrest, which the missionaries claimed would completely exonerate them of any wrongdoing.
The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan is representing all of the Christian missionaries. Because District Judge Mark W. Somers required that all four defendants personally appear before him for the arraignment, the Law Center assisted with the costs of their travel from different parts of the country.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It’s evident that the Dearborn Police department was more interested in placating Muslims than obeying our Constitution. These Christians were exercising their Constitutional rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, but apparently in a city where the Muslim population seems to dominate the political apparatus, Sharia law trumps our Constitution.”
Thus far, police and prosecutors have refused to return the illegally seized cameras and video tapes. They have also refused to provide the Law Center with the police reports of the incident despite repeated requests.
Arrested on charges of Breach of the Peace are Negeen Mayel, Dr. Nabeel Qureshi, Paul Rezkalla and David Wood. Mayel, an eighteen-year old female whose parents emigrated from Afghanistan and a recent convert from Islam to Christianity, was also charged with failure to obey a police officer’s orders. She was at least 100 feet away and videotaping Qureshi’s discussion with the Muslim youths when police seized her camera.
Thompson added, “Not all police officers approve of the way their department treated these Christians.”
Robert Muise, Senior Trial Counsel with the Law Center, will represent the Christian missionaries at the arraignment on Monday.
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=19
A Philadelphia evangelist has once again found himself behind bars.
This past weekend, Repent America President Michael Marcavage, along with fellow evangelists
Mike Stockwell and Ken Fleck, were sharing the gospel and singing hymns outside an Islamic mosque in Philadelphia. The three were approached by a security guard from the University of Pennsylvania who told them they could not preach on the public sidewalk.
“I told him that this is what we do…I’ve been here before, and that we should have the entitlement to be here,” Marcavage accounts. “So he decided he would radio the University of Pennsylvania police, which cover that area, because this mosque is nearby to the University of Pennsylvania. He ultimately had radioed in more security and more police officers.”
Marcavage and Fleck were arrested and charged with two summary offenses for preaching disorderly conduct and obstructing a highway, and the Repent America president claims the police erased a video of the episode.
He adds that this type of situation is unfortunately not unique to Philadelphia.
“This is becoming all too commonplace, not only in Philadelphia, but across the United States,” he laments. “We’re finding more and more Christians who are being cited for bogus things while they’re out there sharing their faith with people in the public square.”
The evangelists’ trial date has been set for August 10.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/Default.aspx?id=1080566
WINSTON-SALEM —
A Winston-Salem pastor who was asked to offer the North Carolina legislature prayer each day 
for a week says he was barred after the first day when he refused to change his prayers to exclude the name “Jesus.”Dr. Ron Baity, pastor at Berean Baptist Church, said he was asked to open the May 31 through June 3 sessions.”I was made to feel like a second-class North Carolinian when I was told that my services would no longer be needed if I could not offer the opening prayer in the manner prescribed by the House of Representatives, rather that in the manner my biblical faith requires,” Baity said.
The Christian Law Association, an organization that offers free legal defense and counsel to churches, helped Baity draft a nine-page letter to House Speaker Joe Hackney asking for an apology and the ability to return to offer another prayer.Hackney released a statement late Thursday afternoon.”It has been our practice in the North Carolina House of Representatives for many years to request, but not require, that our guest chaplains deliver a nonsectarian prayer. This is intended as a show of respect for all the religions practiced by the members of the House and the people we represent,” the statement read.”In this instance, we allowed Pastor Baity to deliver his prayer, without interference, even though it was sectarian in nature. Nonetheless, we will review our procedures and guidelines concerning guest chaplains, and we will make sure we abide by applicable constitutional procedures.
The House will adjourn within the next few days, but the results of this review will be publicly available whenever it is complete.”CLA attorney David Gibbs said the legislature doesn’t have the right to keep Baity from praying in any way he wishes.”The First Amendment promises all Americans the free exercise of their religion, which includes the right to pray as their faith requires, even when they are invited to open state legislative sessions with prayer,” Gibbs said. “We trust that the North Carolina House of Representatives will realize its mistake and will offer Pastor Baity another opportunity to pray without requiring him to use a prayer that is mandated by government.”Gibbs said there is no Supreme Court precedent that allows a legislature to censor a private citizen’s prayers. However, a federal magistrate earlier this year ruled that the use of prayer at public meetings violates the First Amendment.
That lawsuit was filed several years ago on behalf of two Forsyth County residents, Janet Joyner and Constance Blackmon, who objected to the use of prayer before county commissioner meetings.Forsyth County commissioners voted in February to appeal the judge’s decision.American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina legal director Katy Parker said the Forsyth County case, as well as others, make it clear that prayers offered before public meetings must be sectarian.”When you are doing an opening legislature prayer, you are acting as the government mouthpiece, not as a private citizen,” Parker said. “The government has an obligation to stay neutral on matters of religion so that all citizens in North Carolina are included by their government.”"If Pastor Baity were speaking as a private citizen on the street and he were told he couldn’t pray in Jesus’ name, the ACLU would be the first to defend him,” she said.Parker said oral arguments in the Forsyth County appeal are expected to be heard in October in Richmond, Va.Baity said he’s given Hackney 10 days to respond to his letter.”If the speaker were to say, ‘I will not allow people of a certain race to pray,’ everyone would say that’s discrimination,” Gibbs said. “Or if he said, ‘I’m going to evaluate people’s sexual orientation,’ people would scream discrimination. Well, what’s the difference?”
http://www.wxii12.com/news/24182899/detail.html?source=htv
Yesterday, June 28, the Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that a university could require a Christian student group to open its voting membership and 
leadership to those who disagreed with the group’s statement of faith or refused to abide by its code of conduct. The Court upheld Hastings College of Law’s “all-comers” policy for student groups, a policy that requires each student group on campus to be open to every student. Under such an all-comers policy, Jewish groups would be open to Muslim leadership, African-American groups would be open to white supremacists, and a Prius club would have to be open to Nissan Titan owners like, well, me.
It was hardly surprising to see the Court’s most reliably liberal members (Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Stevens, and Breyer) rule against the Christian group. They often have an expansive view of government power – including when government actions implicate fundamental First Amendment freedoms. And in this case, these justices characterized the Christian Legal Society’s efforts to meet in empty classrooms and to share their faith on campus as nothing more than an effort to enjoy various government benefits.
But four justices are not enough. To fashion a five-vote majority, the Court’s liberal wing had to win over Justice Kennedy.
Unfortunately, they succeeded. Because of the critical importance of Justice Kennedy’s vote, his brief concurring opinion is arguably the most important opinion in the case, and that opinion contains a poison pill for religious liberty. Reading the entire concurrence, one gets the impression that Justice Kennedy simply did not like the Christian Legal Society at Hastings, viewing its effort to maintain doctrinal fidelity through a statement of faith with extreme suspicion, if not disgust. Kennedy dismisses CLS’s convictions in a single sentence: “The era of loyalty oaths is behind us.”
This sentence is Exhibit A for the notion that Supreme Court justices substitute their own highly individualized and sometimes prejudiced judgments for the judgment of individual citizens. The era of loyalty oaths is behind us? Really?
Didn’t each justice take an oath when they joined the Court?
What about this oath, the one I took when I joined the United States Army Reserve, and repeated when I was promoted to captain mere days before my deployment to Iraq?
Or what about the Apostles Creed, the historic declaration of my Christian faith, which I have recited hundreds of times at church and other religious gatherings?
Or what about my marriage vows, a profound form of “loyalty oath” to my wife – a promise of lifelong fidelity?
No one was forced to agree with CLS – indeed, small student groups don’t have the power to compel any citizen to do anything against their will. Those who disagreed with CLS were free to form their own group, to condemn CLS loudly (which they did), or to advocate for the abolition of faith declarations entirely. Indeed, no one could reasonably argue that Hastings Law School suffered from lack of opposition to (or debate about) CLS’s “loyalty oath.”
In fact, CLS’s convictions are increasingly driven from the public square. Its very existence is in jeopardy, and its statement of faith an empty document – drained of any meaning or force within the organization. Why? Because a single justice declares – without any foundation in law or fact – “The era of loyalty oaths is behind us.”
Tens of millions of people of faith in this country will attend churches and synagogues this weekend and state their allegiance to a Creator God. Are their liberties now in danger as well? Because, after all, if the “era of loyalty oaths” is over on campus, is it not over everywhere? Can the government not condition the receipt of its “benefit” of tax exemptions for churches on the abandonment of creeds, of statements of faith?
So when or if you go to church this weekend, and if you stand up and recite the Apostle’s or Nicene creed, remember that your era is over and new ideas must take their place.
Why? Because the Supreme Court says so.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidFrench/2010/06/29/overstepping_their_boundaries_the_supreme_court_decides_what%E2%80%99s_best_for_christians/page/full
