A day after embattled New York pastors who use public school buildings to hold off-hours worship services complained that they had little support from the city's megachurches, Redeemer Presbysterian lead pastor Tim Keller issued an op-ed-style letter, saying:

I am grieved that New York City is planning to take the unwise step of removing 68 churches from the spaces that they rent in public schools. It is my conviction that those churches housed in schools are invaluable assets to the neighborhoods that they serve. Churches have long been seen as positive additions to communities. Family stability, resources for those in need, and compassion for the marginalized are all positive influences that neighborhood churches provide.

There are many with first-hand experience who will claim that the presence of churches in a neighborhood can lead to a drop in crime. The great diversity of our city means that we will never all agree completely on anything. And we cherish our city’s reputation for tolerance of differing opinions and beliefs. Therefore, we should all mourn if disagreement with certain beliefs of the church is allowed to unduly influence the formation of just policy and practice. I disagree with the opinion written by Judge Pierre Leval that: “A worship service is an act of organized religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church.” This is an erroneous theological judgment; I know of no Christian church or denomination that believes that merely holding a service in a building somehow “consecrates” it, setting it apart from all common or profane use. To base a legal opinion on such a superstitious view is surely invalid. Conversely, we concur with Judge John Walker’s dissenting opinion that this ban constitutes viewpoint discrimination and raises no legitimate Establishment Clause concerns.

Yesterday, in an online news piece, Bill Devlin, pastor of Manhattan Bible Church, complained about the lack of megachurch support.

Pastor Bill Devlin of Manhattan Bible Church has helped lead the Right to Worship protests since the beginning. He told The Christian Post that a steering committee made up of 10 pastors affected by the ban came to him and asked, "Where are these pastors who have these huge churches? They have been absolutely silent." Devlin said they have tried contacting large churches that have their own buildings, and the "major response we've gotten from big dog churches and pastors is, 'We'll pray for you.'"

For the full report in the Christian Post, click here.

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 7, 2012 | Comments (2)

A former Eastern Michigan University student has the right to present her religious discrimination suit to a federal jury, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

Julea Ward was expelled from the university’s graduate counseling program in 2009 after she asked her superiors to refer a gay client to another counselor. She said her Christian faith prevented her from affirming the homosexual lifestyle, but that she would be willing to counsel gays and lesbians on other issues.

In 2010, CT reported that a district court judge had ruled in Eastern Michigan’s favor, arguing the university has "a rational basis for requiring its students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values." Friday’s decision from the Sixth Circuit sends the case back to that court and gives Ward the chance to present her case before a jury.

“Although the university submits it dismissed Ward from the program because her request for a referral violated the ACA (American Counseling Association) code of ethics, a reasonable jury could find otherwise — that the code of ethics contains no such bar and that the university deployed it as a pretext for punishing Ward’s religious views and speech,” the court ruled.

In its opinion, the Sixth Circuit clarified that the fact that Ward asked to refer her client to someone else is what separates her case from a similar case in the 11th Circuit. In December, the 11th Circuit upheld a ruling in favor of a Georgia university that insisted a graduate counseling student keep her beliefs about homosexuality private.

Jennifer Keeton sued Augusta State University in July 2010 for violating her First Amendment rights after she was put on a remediation plan in order to comply with the counseling program’s guidelines regarding homosexual clients. A federal court ruled in Augusta State’s favor, saying the university only wanted Keeton to learn to not let her personal views affect her counseling services to gay and lesbian clients, in compliance with the ACA’s code of ethics. Keeton had expressed intent to use conversion therapy on her gay or lesbian clients, whereas Ward planned to refer them to other counselors.

“Nothing in [Keeton’s case] indicates that Augusta State applied the prohibition on imposing a counselor’s values on the client in anything but an even-handed manner,” the Sixth Circuit wrote in its opinion. “Not so [in Ward’s case], as the code of ethics, counseling norms, even the university’s own practices, seem to permit the one thing Ward sought: a referral.”

Posted by Jeremy Weber at January 27, 2012 | Comments (0)

Update: Monday, Jan. 23.

The website nycreligion.org reports that Pastor Dimas, who has been engaged in a protest fast, has suspended his fast due to an underlying heart condition. This coming Sunday, Jan. 29, at 3 p.m., Christians and others will lead a protest walk across the Brooklyn bridge as part of their campaign for the City of New York to reverse its policy to ban worship from public school buildings after hours.

+ + +
The public stand-off between pastors in New York City and the city's Department of Education over use of school buildings for worship is anything but resolved.

The website, NYC Religion, this morning posted this update:

Pastor Dimas Salaberrios is on his 19th day of a hunger strike against a city policy that will kick out over 60 churches and other religious groups from worshipping in public schools during the off-hours. His effort is one of many protests, prayer gatherings, and pastoral sit-ins organized during the last three weeks by religious leaders, council members, and lay members. Last Thursday, during mayor Bloomberg's State of the City address at Morris high school, 43 protestors against the policy were arrested.

To read the full report, including medical details about the pastor's physical condition, click here.

Posted by Tim Morgan at January 19, 2012 | Comments (0)

In December 2010, CT explored the interesting news that Australia’s atheist prime minister was defending a controversial federal program that paid for Christian chaplains to work in public schools. Now the Australian government is allowing schools to hire secular welfare workers instead of chaplains with program funds if they so chose.

In 2007, the government began offering schools up to $20,000 annually to provide chaplaincy services to students; secular workers could only be hired if the school could prove no chaplains were available. But a program review last year indicated “strong feedback” to open up the program to qualified secular workers. Today 208 of the 2,512 schools that reapplied for the program plan to hire a secular worker; 68 schools remain undecided, and the vast majority will continue hiring chaplains.

CT reported that newly-elected Prime Minister Julia Gillard, an atheist, promised to extend the program through 2014, calling the program a success. The program is voluntary; chaplains offer "comfort and support to students and staff" as well as "general religious and personal advice,” though they cannot tell students what they themselves believe unless they are asked.

However, the Australian Psychological Society expressed concerns that chaplains without proper psychological training could be counseling troubled students. Additionally, a Queensland parent challenged the program in Australia’s High Court in 2010, arguing that it violates the nation's constitutional ban on state-established religion. The High Court has yet to make a decision.

Posted by Jeremy Weber at January 10, 2012 | Comments (3)

Revised: Friday, Jan. 13, 2012
Update: Saturday, Jan. 7, 2012

See the Twitter feed at http://www.nycreligion.org for ongoing updates about the dispute between the NYC Housing Authority and pastors who hold churches services in municipal buildings.

One pastor announced a personal hunger strike to draw public attention to this situation.

CT senior writer Tony Carnes noted that the "New York 7," those who were arrested as noted below, have called for a public prayer event: "NY7 issues call to gather on Feb 2, 8AM to 10AM, NYC Board of Education , 52 Chambers St to pray. "

+ + +

A religious freedom news story is developing in New York City today that should worry any lover of First Amendment guarantees for freedom of religious expression.

CT senior writer, Tony Carnes, also founder/editor of www.nycreligion.org reports that:

Over the Christmas holidays, several local directors of facilities of the New York City Housing Authority notified religious groups, mostly Christian churches, that they could no longer rent community rooms and other facilities. NYCHA officials gave little or no warning of the change of policy and did most of their communicating with the religious groups through word of mouth or email. One church, Open Door Fellowship of East Harlem, was given notice on December 29th two days before their January renewal, leaving the pastor to a scramble to find space for their annual Baptism service.

Their sudden ouster with no hearing process about the change of policy left religious leaders angry. This morning they protested outside the NYC Department of Law at 100 Church Street. A Journey received a call describing the situation, “This is Pastor Devlin [of Manhattan Bible Church] in the back of a police van. We've been arrested. There are 7 arrested.” Pastors Dimas Salaberrios of Infinity Church, Pastor Michael Carrion of Promiseland Covenant Church, City Councilman Fernando Cabrera and three others were also arrested.

Right after the United States Supreme Court declined on December 5th to consider a lower court’s [ruling that the NYC Education Dept. could legally ban worship services by] religious groups renting space in public schools during the off-hours, some local NYCHA directors asked their bosses if the court decision meant that religious groups also can’t meet in the NYCHA rooms set aside for community groups’ usage. One director of a Manhattan community center at a public housing project sent the administrator of Manhattan Borough Community Operations a copy of the newspaper article about the case. The implied question was, what should I do? The administrator emailed back, “NYCHA will not be able to rent to Churches based on a recent circumstance. Our Apologies.”

For the full report, click here. CT will update this story as circumstances develop. If you are in New York and have further information, contact me here.

Posted by Tim Morgan at January 5, 2012 | Comments (12)

Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review an evangelical church’s appeal of a New York City ban on worship services in public schools. The decision means that 60 NYC churches have one month to find new places to worship.

The Bronx Household of Faith had been meeting at a public K-8 school in New York City since 2002, but was recently turned down when it applied for another permit. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June that the NYC Department of Education had the legal right to bar churches from renting school facilities for worship services. The decision overturned a 2002 ruling that had allowed the congregation and nearly 60 other churches (as of 2009) to conduct worship services in NYC school buildings.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the case means the Second Circuit’s decision stands.

CT previously covered the Second Circuit’s decision in the case and reactions from church-state experts, as well as other notable decisions throughout the long-running case’s progression.

Posted by Jeremy Weber at December 5, 2011 | Comments (8)

In ongoing disputes between national Catholic groups and the federal government, victims of sex trafficking might suffer the most damage.

The Washington Post reported this week on mounting friction between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS decided in late September to end a contract underwriting the conference's service to trafficking victims. The $19 million contract, awarded to USCCB since 2006 under President Bush's faith-based funding initiative, helped provide housing and counseling to trafficking victims.

Following church teaching, USCCB had refused to refer victims to contraceptives or abortion services. HHS officials decided to award the grant to three other groups, despite some HHS staff's protests that the USCCB should continue to get funding based on its score from an independent review board. The Post reports the review board scored two of the competing groups significantly lower than USCCB.

Citing anti-Catholic discrimination, USCCB is now threatening legal action, and recently formed an Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. Mary Ann Walsh, USCCB's leading spokesperson, wrote on its media blog:

. . . [A]t least until now, the U.S. government sought to sincerely address the issue [of human trafficking]. It asked USCCB for help when regional programs weren’t reaching victims outside the usual hotspots for trafficking. USCCB created an extraordinary program in conjunction with several partners, Christian and secular, including Lutheran Family Services, Jewish Family Services, Salvation Army, YMCA affiliates, domestic violence shelters, World Relief and others. Only one-third of its subcontractors were Catholic-affiliated, but with the USCCB infrastructure they reached virtually everywhere in the USA. . . .
Apparently HHS rules about the benefits of experience and cost effectiveness can be waived. So can rules about being fully operational by a certain date. What can’t be waived is the new, albeit unwritten rule of HHS, the ABC rule – Anybody But Catholics.

The recent dispute is not the first between national Catholic bodies and HHS, most notably its August mandate requiring all private health insurers to cover abortion and contraceptives with no out-of-pocket charges or co-payments. At a heated House subcommittee meeting today on the rule, Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo wrote that Catholic groups "will have no choice but to stop providing health care and other services to the needy who are not Catholic, or to stop providing health coverage to their own employees." DiNardo wrote,

Is the drive to maximize contraceptive coverage, even among those who do not want it, such an urgent national priority that it transcends concerns about religious liberty, our nation’s ‘First Freedom,’ as well as concerns about women’s health and about access to basic health care for men and women alike?

In a National Review Online op-ed today, Steven Wagner charges that HHS's recent decisions will only hurt sex trafficking victims more. The HHS human trafficking program director from 2003-2006, Wagner noted:

The provision of abortions is banned by the Hyde Amendment and the provision of contraceptives is banned by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, so HHS is demanding that service providers do things which HHS cannot pay for.
Worst of all, the provision of abortions or contraception to victims of human trafficking who have not yet been rescued is tantamount to aiding and abetting the crime of exploitation. Current victims cannot, by definition, provide informed consent, so the only beneficiary is the trafficker/pimp.

For more on how U.S. Christians are helping victims of sex trafficking, visit This Is Our City, which is spotlighting trafficking all week.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at November 2, 2011 | Comments (5)

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand lower court decision ordering the removal of 13 roadside crosses in Utah. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a rare dissenting opinion on the Court’s Monday decision to not hear two cases involving memorials for fallen state police officers. For Thomas—and several Christian legal organizations—the case was a missed opportunity for the court to clarify the standards for judging public display of religious symbols.

The Supreme Court denied the case without comment. With thousands of appeals to consider, the Court rarely offers an opinion or explain its reasoning when it denies a case. A justice offers a dissent in a denial in only a handful of cases.

Thomas said the Court should have taken up the case to help clear up the standards for judging whether a public or governmental display religious symbol is constitutional. Lower courts use different standards. In 2005, the Court ruled on two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments. On the same day, the Court decided that one display in Texas was constitutional; another display in Kentucky was declared unconstitutional. Thomas noted the various standards used by lower courts due to the lack of a clear guidance from the high Court.

“Today the Court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles,” Thomas wrote.

In previous court cases, Thomas has advocated the position that the First Amendment's ban on the establishment of religion applies to the federal government only. State and local governments are not restricted in the same way, according to Thomas.

The Court, however, has recently used the so-called endorsement test for religious symbols. A religious symbol can be displayed on public property as long as 1) it is not an endorsement of a religion or 2) a reasonable person could not interpret the symbol as an endorsement. The Utah Highway Patrol did not pay for the crosses, and it is on record as not endorsing the crosses as religious symbols. The question is whether the crosses could still be interpreted as being endorsements of Christianity.

In a decision last year, the Court gave a cross memorial as an example of acceptable religious symbols on government property. “A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs,” wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion. (More CT coverage of cross decisions.)

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorney Byron Babione said, “The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear this case is baffling in light of its comments just last year that individualized memorial crosses honoring fallen troopers do not amount to a government establishment of religion.” Babione and the ADF helped represent those who paid for and maintained the crosses.

The Utah crosses are not plain white crosses on the roadside. Each cross stands 12 feet high with a six foot wide crossbeam. They each feature the name and rank of the officer, a picture of the officer, and a plaque listing details about the officer and his death. The crosses also include the symbol of the Utah Highway Patrol and some of the crosses are placed on Utah Highway Patrol property, not by a highway. The lower court concluded that a person could reasonably interpret the crosses as endorsements of Christianity.

The decision was criticized by some evangelical legal groups who believe that the endorsement test should be abandoned. The establishment clause, they argue, should allow government endorsement so long as it does not involve coercion.

"Freedom of religion means, in part, that no government should discriminate against those who, using their own funds, wish to erect a non-invasive religious display on public property,” said Family Research Council's Ken Klukowski.

Even if the endorsement test was adopted, the ADF argued that the crosses could not be interpreted as religious symbols. American Atheists national legal director Edwin Kagin said this argument should be “repugnant” to Christians.

“The attitude that the cross is not a Christian symbol should be repugnant to all of those believers who believe it to be a sign of the son of god [sic] having died on a cross to save everyone who believed in him and that, as he conquered death, so will those who believe this story conquer death. That is what the crosses are to them,” Kagin said.

According to the ADF's brief, that the crosses were memorials and symbols of sacrifice; they did not represent Christianity.

"The [Utah Highway Patrol Association] chose the cross shape because it is the only symbol, given its historical use, that could simultaneously communicate messages of roadside death, commemoration, and highway safety," the ADF brief said.

Image used with permission from the Alliance Defense Fund.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 1, 2011 | Comments (2)

Prison inmates who are deprived of their religious rights cannot sue states for monetary damages, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Inmate Harvey Leroy Sossamon III said a Texas state prison illegally prevented him from attending religious services. Sossamon had been on cell restriction for disciplinary reasons at the time.

Sossamon alleged that the prison's actions violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, which protects inmates' right to practice their faith.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, ruled that under RLUIPA prisoners can sue to change prison policies but not seek financial redress. Texas does not forgo its "sovereign immunity" when it accepts federal money to run its prisons, Thomas said.

After Sossamon filed suit, the prison changed its policies, Thomas noted.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer in dissenting from the majority decision, argued that RLIUPA allows prisoners to seek "appropriate relief" for violations of the law.

Without the possibility of monetary damages, Sotomayor said, prisoners will be forced to defend their religious rights "with one hand tied behind their backs."

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty agreed, saying the high court's ruling leaves prisoners with "an incomplete remedy for vindicating their religious rights."

"We are disappointed in the majority's pinched view of what was a clear congressional intent to provide prisoners broad protection for religious liberty and a robust remedy for its violation, including monetary damages," said BJC Executive Director J. Brent Walker.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 21, 2011 | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to an Arizona school tuition credit program critics contend was principally benefiting religious institutions.

The 5-4 decision, combined with a 2007 ruling rejecting a similar challenge to the Bush administration's faith-based office, seems to solidify the court's skepticism toward attempts to derail government funding of religious programs.

Monday's decision was hailed by supporters of religiously based education and makes it tougher for taxpayers to challenge such scholarship programs by claiming they violate church-state separation.

The Arizona tax credit, enacted in 1997, allows participants to receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits for donations to so-called "student tuition organizations," or STOs, of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for married couples.

The Arizona Department of Revenue reported that two STOs -- the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization and the Catholic School Tuition Organization of the Diocese of Phoenix -- received 38 percent of the total donations in 2009. Court documents showed the total percentage of religiously affiliated STOs was 67 percent that year, down from 94
percent in 1998.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court's conservative majority, said the taxpayers who filed suit lacked legal standing to challenge the program because they incorrectly viewed the tax credit as a form of government spending.

"While the state, at the outset, affords the opportunity to create and contribute to an STO, the tax credit system is implemented by private action and with no state intervention," he wrote.

The decision echoed the court's 2007 ruling in a case filed against the White House office by an atheist group; in that case, too, the justices said challengers did not have standing.

"In an era of frequent litigation, ... courts must be more careful to insist on the formal rules of standing, not less so," Kennedy concluded in the Arizona decision.

In a strongly worded dissent, the court's freshman member, Justice Elena Kagan, argued that taxpayer standing should not be based on whether the money subsidizing religion comes through a tax break or a direct grant.

"Either way, the government has financed the religious activity," she said. "And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy."

She was joined in her dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The Alliance Defense Fund, which argued for the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, hailed the "national precedent" that will limit similar suits in federal courts.

"The court's reasoning is sound," said ADF senior counsel David Cortman. "The government does not own 100 percent of every American's paycheck. The donations are private money, not government money."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State agreed the decision could prevent federal court action on the issue in the future, but vowed to continue the fight in state courts.

"This is not a good day for the wall of separation," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "A few more bricks are out of it."

He called the twin decisions "disturbing roadblocks to litigation" set up by the high court. "Certainly it's one more hurdle to jump, and these hurdles are getting pretty big," he said.

Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Orthodox Union, said the decision not only protects programs that exist in several states -- and have benefited Jewish students with scholarships -- but will help pave the way for more of them.

"We will ramp up our efforts to replicate the Arizona education tax credit program in other states," he predicted.

The decision leaves in-depth court review of the merits of voucher programs to state courts, said Ira Lupu, a church-state expert at George Washington University Law School. There, lawyers could argue whether such programs violate state or federal constitutions because state courts don't follow the same rules on legal standing as federal courts.

"The questions about the validity of the Arizona program remain unresolved," he said.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 4, 2011 | Comments (1)

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether a teacher who was fired from a religious school is subject to a "ministerial exception" that can bar suits against religious
organizations.

The case involves an employment dispute between a Michigan school and a teacher who is defended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Lawyers for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., argue that courts have long recognized the First Amendment doctrine that often prevents employees who perform religious functions from suing religious organizations.

They asked the court to determine whether it extends to teachers at a religious school who teach a secular curriculum but also teach religion classes and lead students in prayer.

A lower court sided with the school and against fired teacher Cheryl Perich, citing the ministerial exception. But last March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, saying it did not apply because Perich spends most of her time teaching secular topics.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the school, said federal appeals courts are divided on the limits of the ministerial exception and the Supreme Court's consideration is groundbreaking.

"If `separation of church and state' means anything, it means the government doesn't get to pick religious teachers," said Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The EEOC has expressed concern that a ruling against Perich could lead to religious organizations being shielded from all suits filed by staffers "simply by characterizing all of their duties as religious."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 29, 2011 | Comments (3)

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday a veterans' memorial featuring a 43-foot cross on California's Mount Soledad is unconstitutional.

"The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal."

The decision that the memorial in La Jolla, Calif., violates the Establishment Clause reverses a lower court decision but does not determine what will happen to the cross that has been the dominant feature of the monument since it was erected in 1913.

"This result does not mean that the memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans' memorial," McKeown concluded.

The case has wound through the courts for two decades.

"We are grateful to the Ninth Circuit for its recognition that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affirms the contribution of diversity in American democracy without pre-eminence to any single religion," said Robert M. Zweiman, past national commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, which worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the memorial.

Legal groups that supported the memorial, including Liberty Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice, called the decision a "slap in the face" to military veterans.

A second case involving a controversial monument in Southern California also remains in the courts.

Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a war memorial cross to remain at the Mojave National Preserve and told a lower court to further consider a congressionally approved transfer of the cross to private land.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at January 5, 2011 | Comments (8)

The announcement by China Aid.org that the Chinese Politburo had decided to unleash a major new assault on China’s house-church community was broadly publicized after the original press release in early December.

But the organization also paid a heavy price.

Its own website was brought down by a concerted attack of hackers within hours of the December 1 starting date of the new Politburo-organized campaign. Within three and a half days, skillful Internet repair operators have restored the China Aid website to normal.

China Aid says it believes the Chinese government might well have been behind the website attack because hundreds of thousands of different computers have to be commanded to overload a website before an attack can be successful, and only a government-sized agency could mobilize such an attack, says a China Aid officer.

A China Aid representative also said that he had heard reports coming from China of close surveillance and investigation of a few Chinese Christian leaders in Beijing, and in Henan Province in the center of China.

“The leaders we spoke to said that something unusual was happening,” he said. One house church pastor from central China said that he had the impression that the authorities were collecting evidence to put him behind bars.

China Aid was especially watching the case of Dr. Fan Yafeng, the head of Christian Human Rights Lawyers of China and of the Shengshan (Holy Mountain) Research Institute. Fan had been detained for nine days, his wife had been interrogated overnight, and items had been removed by authorities from both his home and the research institute.

Although Fan was allowed to go home, he remained under house arrest. Fan was the recipient (in absentia) of the of the 2009 John Leland religious liberty award of the Southern Baptist Convention. He has represented China’s persecuted Christians and campaigned for the concept of constitutional democracy.

Other reports from China were less gloomy.

A source with frequent access to the house church situation in China, who nevertheless did not want to be identified, reported that he had not heard follow-up stories of the crackdown in the nearly three weeks since December 1, when “Operation Deterrence” was formally supposed to have begun.

“Twenty-one days is a long time. I have not been able to identify any impact or any action taken against any house church leaders of group of leaders. I am personally doubtful that any action has taken place.”

There were other reports of some of the original Chinese invitees to the Lausanne conference in Cape Town, South Africa, in October – who had been prevented from traveling to Cape Town -- having been able to travel abroad in the past few days.

China’s annoyance at the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident, but not apparently a Christian, might have lessened since the December 10 Oslo award ceremony.

Attention to the situation of Christians in China, however, is an important part of their ability to operate freely. China Aid credits the media response to their original press release about "Operation Deterrence" with speeding up Dr. Fan's release from police custody.

+ + +

Today, China Aid posted a statement from Fan Yafeng in which he expresses thanksgiving for the prayerful support of the global Christian community. Click here for the statement.

For more from David Aikman, formerly a columnist for Christianity Today, visit his website. -- eds.

Posted by Tim Morgan at December 22, 2010 | Comments (6)

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell has signed a bill into law which protects church bake sales, potlucks and similar events from sanction by state food inspectors, according to WHTM.

Pennsylvania church leaders—and, no doubt, church bake sale cooks—welcomed what became known as the “Pie Bill.”

“Everybody likes pie,” pastor Mike Greb told The Philadelphia Inquirer this week. His own St. Cecilia’s Catholic Church has been at the epicenter of the recent controversy. ""These fundraisers are our survival," Greb said. "In tough economic times, they keep the doors open and the lights on."

In early 2009, an inspector from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture shut down a St Cecilia’s Lenten bake sale.

Since the food was coming from a non-state-inspected kitchen, the state government considered it a “potentially hazardous substance.” Freshman State Senator Elder Vogel decided to introduce a bill—his first in the legislature, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review—allowing nonprofits to sell home-cooked food at fundraisers.

Concerned citizens sweetened the deal by inundating their legislators with plates of cookies, the Inquirer reports. The bill passed the House and Senate unanimously last week.

In 2005, Christianity Today reported on several states which had various degrees of restriction of what churches could and could not do with baked goods.

Image via lcarsdata/wikimedia

Posted by Ted Olsen at June 10, 2010 | Comments (4)

A cross at the crux of a recent Supreme Court case has been stolen from the Mojave National Preserve in Southern California, the Associated Press reports. The World War I memorial cross, erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), was at the center of the Court's April ruling about whether such memorial crosses violate church-state separation.

The National Park Service told the AP that someone cut the bolts holding the metal cross late Sunday. Preserve spokesperson Linda Slater told the Desert-Dispatch that the cross's wood covering was noticed missing Saturday. The uncovered cross was seen Sunday but was missing later in the day when preserve staff went to replace the wooden cover.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on April 28 that Mojave's cross could stay for the time being, as the First Amendment "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm." It sent the case back to lower courts that had ruled against the cross as governmental endorsement of religion. Christianity Today has followed the case since it went before the Court in October 2009.

Meanwhile, the VFW is offering $25,000 for leads on the cross's whereabouts and the perpetrators. Kelly Shackelford of the Liberty Institute, a Texas-based group "guided by principles that limit government and promote Judeo-Christian values," said they " . . . will not rest until this memorial is re-installed," reports The Press-Enterprise. "This is an outrage, akin to desecrating people's graves. It's a disgraceful attack on the selfless sacrifice of our veterans."

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at May 11, 2010 | Comments (7)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Wednesday that the much-debated war memorial cross in Mojave National Preserve may remain because Congress' attempted transfer of the plot of land to private hands would resolve any constitutional concerns.

Unsurprisingly, the Court did not directly address the bigger Establishment Clause question of religious symbols on public land, instead ordering a lower court to reassess its challenge to the land transfer solution.

CT previously asked experts to weigh in on the case here.

Update: Carl Esbeck tells CT that today's Supreme Court ruling on the Mojave cross is more newsworthy to evangelical church-state watchers than most media have portrayed.

Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri, explains that Justice Anthony Kennedy sent the case back to the district court for additional fact-finding on whether Congress’ purpose in ordering the land swap was religious or secular, i.e. an evasion of the trial court's injunction or an accommodation to those wanting to preserve a war memorial. But Esbeck believes that Kennedy actually says quite a lot about how he thinks a court majority—and hence the Establishment Clause—should handle this kind of religious symbol on government property case.

“It would be a shame for evangelicals to think nothing has changed,” said Esbeck. “The way this will be spun is ‘everything was murky and unclear before, and everything is still murky and unclear.’ That is a way of covering up the loss, because the ACLU victory below was reversed. Are things crystal clear? No. But the ball has moved towards religious symbols on government property not violating the Establishment Clause, and now we know where [Chief Justice John] Roberts and [Justice Samuel] Alito—who are new to the Court—stand.”

“Press releases from the usual crowd probably overstate the scope of the opinion,” said Esbeck. “But it would be wrong to just say this case was not a loss for the ACLU. Kennedy has language that says of course the Roman cross is a Christian cross, but symbols can have multiple meanings, and it is clear in this case that the 70-year-old cross has taken on the message of a war memorial. This language will help the briefs of ACLJ, ADF, etc. And Roberts and Alito signed on to this language in Kennedy’s opinion. Further, Kennedy has never been so forthright on these Establishment issues.”

Esbeck says debate will now shift to whether the congressional purpose in swapping land was religious or not. The case could potentially go all the way back up to the Ninth Circuit and maybe the Supreme Court again, though this process will take years.

The ruling may improve of the odds of religious symbols remaining in public spaces, but Esbeck sees the justifications cited as a mixed blessing.

“I’m not a big fan of religious symbols on government property,” said Esbeck. “I believe there is a detriment because it dilutes the real purpose of the symbol. They’ve taken a symbol of the church and turned it into civil religion. This can be bad for evangelicals because when people look at a nativity scene or a Roman cross, we want people to think of the God of the Bible. If these too become simply civil religion to Americans, it makes the task of evangelism harder for Christians.”

Posted by Jeremy Weber at April 28, 2010 | Comments (1)

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in favor of a woman who sued a church and its pastor after she was injured when no one caught her fall after she was “overcome by the spirit of the Lord" during a rally. Here's more from the Lansing State Journal:

Dadd, who is in her 50s, sued the church and its pastor after she was injured while "slain in the Spirit" - falling backward after being "overcome by the Spirit of the Lord" - during a rally at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township in 2002.

Dadd claimed Pastor Dave Williams defamed her when he accused her of insurance fraud, faking her injuries and renouncing her faith. A jury awarded her more than $317,000 damages for her injuries, as well as libel, slander and false light in a 2007 trial.

The decision reversed a state Appeals Court decision that threw out most of a jury award to Judith Dadd, but the state's high court has reinstated $317,000 to the woman.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 13, 2010 | Comments (5)

Openly gay members the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (ELCF) are complaining of discrimination, according to Helsingin Sanomat.

The issue was raised by the chairman of an organization that promotes the cause of Christians who are members of sexual minorities, a third of whom (about 200) are employed by the Lutheran Church.

More than 80 percent of Finnish citizens belong to the ELCF, whose 12 bishops decided in February to recommend against instituting any formula for a church blessing on same-sex unions. In May, the bishops plan to propose a resolution to the Synod that would authorize prayers for couples in same-sex unions, according to the news report. The chairman predicts that several people will leave the church if the Synod decides to ban even holding prayers for same-sex couples.

In 2007, a district court prosecutor charged and convicted a pastor with criminal discrimination for refusing to work with a female pastor. Observers wondered whether the case would set a precedent for similar cases concerning discrimination against homosexuals. Finland's laws prohibit any discrimination either in the workplace or in public based on factors like sex, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at April 12, 2010 | Comments (0)

A judge in Orlando said today that he plans to send Rifqa Bary back to Ohio. Bary, a 17-year-old who fled to Florida because she believes her Muslim family would physically harm her for converting to Christianity.

Florida police found no evidence that her family would harm her and her mother's evangelical lawyer believed her Sri Lankan parents were right. Bary left for Florida on a bus in July to stay with husband and wife pastors she met through a prayer group on Facebook.

The judge said today that her parents must provide immigration paperwork and that she can continue her education through a Florida online school. A representative from the children's services in Ohio said a foster home has been identified for Rifqa in that state, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The Columbus Dispatch reports that the judge said he expects Bary to return to Ohio by October 27.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 13, 2009 | Comments (2)

Anti-discrimination statutes do not apply to an Idaho homeless shelter run by Christians because it is not a "dwelling," a federal district judge has ruled.

Moreover, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects the Boise Rescue Mission Ministries' right to hold Christian services and encourage participants in its drug and alcohol recovery program to accept Christianity, U.S. District Judge Edward J. Lodge ruled last Thursday (Sept. 10).

The 51-year-old non-profit says it runs three shelters that serve more than 28,000 meals and offers 8,000 beds to homeless persons each month. Lodge ruled that the shelters are not dwellings under the Fair Housing Act, but rather places of "temporary sojourn or transient visit."

At the same time, barring the Boise ministry from "teaching, preaching and proselytizing to individuals on its property, whether they be shelter guests, Discipleship program residents, or other individuals ... would substantially burden the Rescue Mission's ability to freely exercise its religion," Lodge wrote.

The Intermountain Fair Housing Council had sued Boise Rescue Mission Ministries on behalf of two individuals who said that guests who skip the shelters' worship services received inferior treatment, and that only Christians are allowed in its drug and alcohol recovery program.

"Most homeless people are desperately low in spirit," said the Rev. Bill Roscoe, executive director of the Boise Rescue Mission Ministries, "so we offer voluntary spiritual guidance to guests who desire to learn about Christianity."

Roscoe said the shelters do not discriminate on the basis of religion.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at September 15, 2009 | Comments (2)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled yesterday that a California law school could lawfully bar the school's Christian Legal Society from being recognized as a student group for requiring its members to sign a statement of faith. The ruling could set a precedent for the way Christian organizations can or cannot retain their distinct religious beliefs at public colleges with nondiscrimination policies.

The CLS chapter at the University of California's Hastings College of Law filed a lawsuit in fall 2004 against the college for denying it status as a registered student organization. According to CLS's brief, it was denied official recognition for requiring members to sign a statement of faith, which, among other things, prohibits homosexual conduct. Hastings officials had said CLS's standards violated the school's nondiscrimination policy, which says all student groups "shall not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."

CLS's lawsuit claimed that Hastings was practicing viewpoint discrimination and violating CLS's right to expressive association. It claimed that Hastings was applying its policy inconsistently. CLS's brief, page 14?18:

Hastings allows other registered student organizations to require that their leaders and/or members agree with the organization's beliefs and purposes. . . . Outlaw [a pro-gay rights group] is free to remove officers if they fail to support the organization's pro-gay rights purpose; Silenced Right: National Alliance Pro-Life Group may require its members to support its pro-life purposes; . . . Hastings' nondiscrimination policy is viewpoint discriminatory, as it allows a vegetarian club to require that officers and members not eat meat, but prohibits an Orthodox Jewish group for requiring its officers and members to abstain from pork for religious reasons.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not interpret Hastings's nondiscrimination policy that way, however. Its two-sentence ruling from yesterday:

The parties stipulate that Hastings imposes an open membership rule on all student groups - all groups must accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group. The conditions on recognition are therefore viewpoint neutral and reasonable.

CLA has not posted a response to its website yet. It is facing similar fights at other colleges, including the University of Iowa, where more than 100 faculty and staff have signed a petition calling for the school to stop funding its CLA chapter. CLA won similar cases in summer 2005 against Arizona State University and Southern Illinois University.

Inside Higher Ed and The San Francisco Chronicle covered the Hastings story.

Listen to the oral arguments here, and check CT's website later for deeper analysis of this case's implications for religious organizations on public college campuses.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at March 18, 2009 | Comments (1)

April 25th marked the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's annual Day of Silence, described by the Network's website as a "student-led day of action when concerned students, from middle school to college, take some form of a vow of silence to bring attention to the name-calling, bullying and harassment--in effect, the silencing--experienced by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and their allies." Not surprisingly, the nationwide event elicited a range of responses from evangelical Christian groups at both the national and local level, and therefore offers promise as an occasion for further reflection about what form Christian witness should take in a pluralistic democratic society.

Boycott, in the form of students staying home from school that day, was advised by both Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association. This strategy was often joined to protest, as seen at Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie, Washington (an eastside suburb of Seattle). According to a Seattle Times article, not only were 495 out of 1,410 students not at school for the day--"including 85 athletes whose parents had asked that they be excused for their personal beliefs"--but "about 100 people joined the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a prominent anti-gay-rights activist, in prayer and song that questioned the dedication of a school day to what they said was a controversial political cause." The week before, Hutcherson, pastor of the local Antioch Bible Church, had called for 1,000 "prayer warriors" to join him in an ad in a local paper.

A form of protest was also displayed by Alexander Nuxholl, a sophomore at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Illinois. Nuxholl was granted the right to wear a shirt that read, "Be Happy, Not Gay" on the Day of Silence by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court also ordered the school district not to discipline him for wearing the shirt. Nuxholl's case was litigated by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian nonprofit legal alliance based in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The ADF also sponsored a countermeasure or alternative to the Day of Silence, a second common strategy for Christian witness. The annual Day of Truth, which came three days after the the Day of Silence, was, according to its website, "established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective." Christian students are encouraged to wear T-shirts and pass out cards (outside of class time) that read:

I'm speaking the Truth to break the silence.
True tolerance means that people with differing--even opposing--viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other.
It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality.
There's freedom to change if you want to.
Let's talk.

This year marked the fourth for the Day of Truth (roughly 7,000 participants), and the thirteenth Day of Silence (roughly 500,000 participants).

In addition to boycott, protest, and the creation of an alternative, the Day of Silence saw another response from evangelical Christians--participation. The Golden Rule Pledge is promoted by Grove City College Psychology Professor Warren Throckmorton as an option for "straight Christian and conservative students [who] are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harrassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers." This response urges Christian students to act in accordance with the message on the cards they are urged to give out:

This is what I'm doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31).

The Golden Rule Pledge website features first-hand accounts from Christian students who participated in this year's Day of Silence, including Jordyne of Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, who convinced ASU's Campus Crusade and InterVarsity Fellowship ministries to support Christian students such as her who chose to duct tape their mouths shut for a day.

Evangelicals are by definition a gospel-proclaiming people. Part of our becoming a wise people is learning to match our proclamation both to the manner of the Christ we proclaim, as well as to the occasion before us. Gospel wisdom, then, means not just learning when to speak, but what part of God's good news to speak first, and how that news should be delivered. On occasion, we may even find the best way to begin to "speak" this marvelous news is to remain silent.

Share this:

Posted by Derek Keefe at May 2, 2008 | Comments (19)

Florida's news outlets are abuzz again with the latest developments in the state's attempt to pinpoint guidelines for science education in public classrooms. This morning the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill 71?43 that requires public school teachers to offer "a thorough presentation and scientific critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution," more obtuse wording than that approved by Florida's Senate last Wednesday.

The Senate's bill, called the "Evolution Academic Freedom Act," was spearheaded by Sen. Ronda Storms and aimed at granting educators the right to present scientifically grounded alternatives to evolution, along with protecting them from disciplinary action for doing so. The bill borrows largely from an academic freedom bill drafted by the Discovery Institute, the leading research center on intelligent design, and focuses on teachers' First Amendment rights.

Proponents of both bills repeatedly stated that the legislation does not allow creationism or intelligent design to be taught in classrooms, and that neither bill includes religious language.

Florida legislators have until this Friday to come to agreement on the bill's wording. Considering the House's agreed-upon wording was already rejected by the Senate in earlier hearings, it remains dubious whether the legislators will be able to pass a bill at all.

Florida's debate over evolution began last October, when the State Board of Education adopted new science education standards that identified evolution as the "fundamental concept" underlying biology. Before the new standards, the Board of Education's statewide curriculum did not include the word evolution.

See CT Newsfeed's prior coverage of evolution and science education.

Share this:

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at April 28, 2008 | Comments (0)

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has the details here. Also keep an eye on his website.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 14, 2008 | Comments (1)

In a recent speech, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said that England should make room for Sharia law to solve certain types of issues. Though it was a nuanced lecture, it was widely sensationalized in the British dailies on Friday, and still the lead story in The Times today. See the BBC link for the current state of the story, and lots of supplementary material, including the text of his lecture, "Islam and English Law," given at Lambeth Palace.

Coming from the head of the world's third largest church communion in the context of one of the world's most vibrant democracies, it is, to say the least, a provocative suggestion, even when nuanced. In an increasingly pluralistic world, where religion remains a vital component of most people's lives, it is something the U.S. will have to face into at some point.

Posted by Mark Galli at February 9, 2008 | Comments (13)