Update (April 8): North Carolina lawmakers apparently aren't the only ones who would support establishing an official state religion. According to a new poll, more than one-third of Americans would support "establishing Christianity as the official state religion in [their] state."

Forbes also reports that nearly half of those polled "would also favor a constitutional amendment that would make Christianity the official religion of the United States."
-----

Update (April 5): The North Carolina House of Representatives will not vote on a bill that would allow the state to disregard the federal Establishment Clause, according to local news source WRAL.com.

Benedictine monks seeking to support themselves post-Hurricane Katrina have won a second legal victory as they fight Louisiana funeral homes for the right to make and sell handmade caskets at prices that undercut the undertakers.

Update (Feb. 13): The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation that will allow churches (and other houses of worship) damaged by Hurricane Sandy to apply for taxpayer-funded relief aid through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The bill is also expected to pass the Senate, according to Religion News Service.

According to The Hill, the House bill "would amend the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to include houses of worship in the list of non-profit groups that are eligible for federal disaster aid."

FEMA's current policy does not allow churches, synagogues, and mosques to receive federal aid, although religiously affiliated groups may apply.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty weighed in on the issue earlier today, calling FEMA's current policy unconstitutional and discriminatory.

______________________________________

The Montana Supreme Court has voted 4-3 to uphold a state law that requires religious organizations to carry workers' compensation insurance.

After the United Kindom's Charity Commission denied charitable status to the Brethren movement, a small isolationist Christian group, members of Parliament have proposed a bill that would aim to treat all churches as charities.

(Update: Bob Smietana of The Tennessean has a helpful roundup of reactions to the commission's report.)

In 2007, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) began investigating six major Christian ministries for "possible misuse of donations."

Five years later, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations (CAPRO) released a 91-page report today with 43 recommendations aimed at increasing financial accountability by religious and nonprofit organizations—without requiring excessive new regulations.

Update (Mar. 28): Religion Clause reports that the Tennessee Court of Appeals has ruled that "a portion of a church's multi-million dollar family life center is not exempt from property taxes."

According to the court's decision, the gym is eligible only for a 50-percent tax exemption, and the cafe and bookstore are not eligible for any exemption because they are retail facilities.
-----

According to Florida state law, residential children's homes that claim religious exemptions are not subject to state oversight.

And this leads to religiously affiliated children's home subjecting children to "punishment and isolation that verge on torture — so long as they quote chapter and verse to justify it," according to an investigative report by the Tampa Bay Times. The three-part report details allegations of abuse and neglect at "nearly a dozen" of more than 30 religious homes reporters investigated.

Churches in the Czech Republic will receive billions of dollars worth of seized property in return for finally becoming independent from the secular state's payroll.

The famous/infamous cross that long adorned a controversial World War I memorial in the Mojave Desert—seven feet of welded steel that became the focus of a U.S. Supreme Court battle before being stolen in 2010—has likely been found by deputy sheriffs in northern California. The news comes days before the dedication of its replacement.

Update (May 8, 2013): A Texas state judge has determined that religiously themed banners displayed by cheerleaders at Kountze High School in Texas are constitutionally permissible. According to the Associated Press, "In a copy of the ruling obtained by Beaumont station KFDM, [judge Steve] Thomas determined that no law 'prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.'"

The lawsuit, which became a high-profile case last fall, was scheduled to go to trial later this summer, but this summary judgment ends the case.
-----

When Kountze High School in Texas banned cheerleaders from using Bible verses on their banners, the ban sparked a national debate about students' freedom of religion and free speech rights. For now, though, cheerleaders will be free to wave their banners, according to a ruling by Hardin County District Judge Steve Thomas.

Yesterday, Thomas extended a temporary injunction against the school district's ban on religiously themed banners, saying that the ban appeared to violate the cheerleaders' free speech rights.

More than 1,500 pastors explicitly broke the law last Sunday by endorsing political candidates from the pulpit. Amid a tense election year, their participation in the annual protest "could hold more sway than in previous years," CNN reports.

Parents who objected to their school district's ban on religious language won an unexpected victory from a Texas judge this week, who ruled that the ban amounted to unnecessary censorship on private speech.

Editor's note: Hobby Lobby CEO David Green has written an op-ed in USA Today.

Family-owned retail craft chain Hobby Lobby joined the contraception mandate fray yesterday, suing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over its new requirement for employers to provide healthcare coverage for emergency contraceptives.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby requests an emergency injunction to prohibit the "unconstitutional" HHS policy from being enforced.

An atheist-led challenge to the longstanding parsonage tax break enjoyed by ministers will now move forward -- again -- after a Wisconsin federal judge recently ruled that the group has new legal standing for its lawsuit.

District judge Barbara Crabb ruled Aug. 29 that plaintiffs from the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) can challenge an IRS tax exemption for "minister[s] of the gospel" for certain housing-related compensation because the FFRF recently changed its salary structure to include such a housing allowance.

A 17-foot, cross-shaped beam became a famous Ground Zero symbol in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Now it is facing legal challenges to its intended public display at the still-unopened, billion-dollar National September 11 Memorial and Museum.

The controversy reflects debate over whether memorial crosses are worth preserving if they have to be neutered of their religious significance in order to remain in the public square.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment this week that will permit students to refuse school assignments that violate their religious beliefs.

Supporters of Amendment 2, which was expected both to pass and to be challenged in court, argued that it protects religious expression in schools and other public forums and hope it becomes a model for other states. Critics argued that the amendment duplicates existing legal protections and will prove a "nightmare for school districts."

An Illinois federal district court relied on the ministerial exception -- given national attention by last year's U.S. Supreme Court Hosanna-Tabor ruling -- in deciding that a former Lutheran school teacher could not sue for discrimination after being terminated.

Janet Herzog filed a lawsuit against St. Peter Lutheran Church, which owns a Lutheran elementary school, claiming her employment was terminated based on age, sex, and marital status. The church claims Herzong was let go because of "budgetary reasons."

A federal appeals court has upheld Georgia’s ban on bringing guns into places of worship.

Baptist pastor Jonathan Wilkins and a gun-rights group had argued that church members should have the right to carry guns into worship services to protect the congregation.

But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that a Georgia law adopted in 2010 does not violate the Thomaston congregation’s First and Second Amendment rights.

Gun-rights advocates might want a weapon for self-defense, but that is a “personal preference, motivated by a secular purpose,” the court ruled.

Jerry Henry, executive director of GeorgiaCarry.org, said the minister and his organization are mulling an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We think they’ve got it wrong again,’’ he said in an interview Tuesday.

“The church’s First Amendment right prevails over the state right to tell them what they can and cannot do,” Henry said.

The appeals court also rejected arguments about the constitutional amendment permitting U.S. citizens to bear arms.

“A place of worship’s right, rooted in the common law, to forbid possession of firearms on its property is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment,” the court said.

(RNS)

Update (May 6): According to Religion Clause, a Kentucky court has rejected Sunrise Children's Services' most recent attempt to continue arguing its case after the state agreed to a settlement in March. Sunrise argued that the settlement terms "[impose] obligations on it without giving it the opportunity to litigate the merits further. The court however rejected this argument, saying that new obligations are not imposed on Sunrise."

Peter Smith at the Courier-Journal offers more details on why the Baptist foster agency fears stigma from the settlement.

-----

Update (Mar. 21, 2013): Associated Baptist Press reports that the state of Kentucky finally has settled a 13-year-old lawsuit with the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the ACLU, agreeing to "change its child-care system to ensure that faith-based groups that contract with the state do not pressure children in their care to participate in religious services."

According to the ACLU, "Child-care agencies that contract with the state [now] will be forbidden to discriminate in any manner against any child based on the child's views about religion or to pressure children to participate in religious worship or instruction."

However, Sunrise Children's Services is refusing to participate in the settlement, notes Peter Smith at the Courier-Journal.

Associated Baptist Press provides more information.

-----

A long-running lawsuit seeking to cut off state funding for Sunrise Children’s Services (formerly Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children) -- first for firing a gay employee, and second for promoting religion to children using taxpayer money -- has been permitted to continue after 12 years of twists and turns.

At issue: Whether taxpayers can challenge the state funding of faith-based social services, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that taxpayers cannot challenge the federal funding of such groups.

Rhode Island lawmakers hope to avoid future litigation over religious icons on public property by creating a commission to catalogue public icons that have lost their religious significance.

House Bill 8143 Sub A, which passed into law last week without Gov. Lincoln D. Chafee’s signature, gives the green light for creation of the "Category One Memorial Designation Commission” to identify and protect properties with “secular traditional, cultural, or community recognition and/or value."

The legislation was crafted in response to recent controversy over a white memorial cross on display in front of the Woonsocket Fire Department headquarters (pictured above). The cross faces potential litigation and will likely be moved.

Last month, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Woonsocket mayor Leo Fontaine arguing that the cross, erected in 1921 as a World War I memorial, violates the separation of church and state since it is located on city property.

City council president John Ward told the Associated Press that he believes the cross is more of a historical symbol, but the city can’t afford a lawsuit. So the cross may be moved to a more prominent location on private property.

However, a Rhode Island atheist group says the cross ought to stay. Jason LaRose, a Woonsocket resident and the co-founder of Ocean State Atheists, told WJAR news the cross “only represents the soldiers who were killed, who were most likely Catholics.”

Gov. Chaffee said the bill does not change the fact that it is up to the courts to decide whether any particular monument violates Establishment Clause restrictions.

CT has spotlighted Supreme Court tussles over public crosses, as well as debate over whether memorial crosses should be considered secular.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a 2009 Baltimore ordinance yesterday that required "limited-service pregnancy centers" to post signs announcing they do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services. The 2-1 ruling, which also struck down a similar ordinance in Maryland's Montgomery County, comes on the heels of a flood of pro-life legislation that hit the courts last year.

In the majority opinion, judges Paul Niemeyer and G. Steven Agee wrote: “In compelling that speech, the Pregnancy Center is, in this case, required to participate in the city’s effort to tell pregnant women that abortions are available elsewhere as a morally acceptable alternative, contrary to the moral and religious beliefs of the Pregnancy Center.”

Dissenting judge Robert King called the majority’s decision “indefensible,” and argued there was "ample evidence that the centers engage in 'deceptive practices' that create health risks for the women who seek help from them."

CT has reported how disclosing information to pregnant women—a long-established pro-life legal strategy—is now cutting both ways as a number of cities have passed laws similar to the Baltimore ordinance. San Francisco requires such disclosures by crisis pregnancy centers. A Texas federal court will decide this summer whether an Austin ordinance can stand. New York City passed such an ordinance but a federal judge stopped it for being "overly broad."

Baltimore archdiocesan spokesman Sean Caine told CT that the issue for conservative clinics is less about disclosure, and more about governmental control.

"They're not against disclosure; they're against the government compelling their speech," Caine said. "What they reject is being told by the government that we have to discuss, through a sign, abortion."

A Phoenix homeowner who held weekly Bible studies in his backyard must serve jail time for failing to comply with building, zoning, fire, and safety codes applicable to churches, ruled a federal district court in Arizona last week.

In 2008, the City of Phoenix ordered Michael Salman to comply with code requirements for a church after neighbors complained about his weekly Bible studies, which often drew 50 people to a gazebo in his backyard. Salman refused, claiming the order violated his free exercise rights, and was sentenced to 60 days in jail, fined $12,000, and given three year's probation--during which he could not host more than 12 people in his home, reports Religion Clause.

On Friday, the federal district court dismissed Salman's attempt to halt this judgment because a lower federal court had already heard his complaint and dismissed it for failing to first exhaust legal options at the state level.

This is not the first time home Bible studies have been cited or barred in the recent past.

In 2011, the California city of San Juan Capistrano fined Chuck Fromm, former president of Maranatha! Music and co-founder and editor of Worship Leader magazine, for holding Bible studies in his family home without a permit. Fromm and his wife Stephanie filed a lawsuit but later dropped it after the city agreed to reimburse the couple and re-examine its permit rules for religious meetings in residential areas.

In April 2009, San Diego county officials issued a warning to David and Mary Jones for hosting a weekly Bible study in their home without a permit for religious assembly; the county rescinded the warning in June of that year. In November of that year, Joe Sutherland of Gilbert, Arizona, was given a cease-and-desist order for church meetings in his home because it violated the city’s zoning code. The city council revised the code the following March to allow the meetings.

(RNS) A coalition of nearly 150 religious leaders, led by conservative Protestants, have petitioned the Obama administration to broaden the exemption that allows churches and some religious organizations to avoid a controversial new mandate that all health care insurers provide free contraception coverage.

In a letter sent Monday (June 11) to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the 149 religious leaders note that they hold differing views on “the moral acceptability” of birth control and on the viability of various administration proposals to allow faith-based groups to bypass the mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage.

But they said they share a strong objection to the language that defines which "religious" groups are eligible for an exemption, saying the definition creates a “two-class system” of religious groups: churches, which qualify under the wording of the exemption, and “faith-based service organizations,” which may or may not qualify.

"This two-class scheme protects those religious organizations focused on activities directed inward to a worship community while offering little religious freedom protection to the many religious organizations that engage in service directed outward,” the letter says.

The letter says that “both worship-oriented and service-oriented religious organizations are authentically and equally religious organizations. ... We deny that it is within the jurisdiction of the federal government to define, in place of religious communities, what constitutes true religion and authentic ministry.”

Diverse critics of the mandate have found a common rallying point in opposition to the exemption definition. The regulation currently states that to qualify as exempt, an organization must be dedicated to promoting its religious values, must primarily employ and serve people who share the group’s beliefs, and must be a nonprofit.

The administration says the regulation would go beyond houses of worship to cover most religious groups, except for universities and hospitals. Officials also say the federal regulation, which is based on a definition used in contraception mandates in some states, would not be applicable in anything beyond the birth control policy.

But religious groups remain wary, at best, of such promises, and are pressing the White Houses to broaden the exemption or drop the mandate altogether.

The letter to Sebelius was organized by Stanley Carlson-Thies, an architect of President George W. Bush's faith-based office, and includes Ronald J. Sider, head of Evangelicals for Social Action; Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; Samuel Rodriguez, head of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission; and David Neff, editor-in- chief of Christianity Today.

A dozen Catholic groups and individuals -- mainly conservative colleges and activists -- signed the letter but no Catholic bishops joined in. The bishops have been at the forefront of efforts to alter or overturn the contraception mandate, and are pursuing their own high-profile course of legal action and political lobbying. The Catholic hierarchy has also made it clear that it has problems with the mandate that go well beyond the exemption.

The bishops are meeting in Atlanta this week to discuss their strategy against the mandate, which they are framing as a campaign for religious freedom.

David Gibson - RNS

A group of churches and religious leaders are suing Philadelphia over new regulations on feeding programs in public parks, which the churches say effectively prohibit their efforts to feed the homeless.

In March, the Philadelphia Department of Health passed the new regulations, which heavily restrict outdoor feeding programs but make exceptions for picnics, permitted events, office lunches, and lunch trucks. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of the churches, alleging the restrictions violate First Amendment rights because they target religiously sponsored feeding programs, many of which have been in place for more than a decade.

Additionally, the suit accused Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter of using the restrictions to try to remove the homeless from areas near tourist attractions.

Last fall, CT reported on the shrinking number of feeding programs and shelters for the homeless, despite the best efforts of churches and religious ministries to keep such programs available after cuts in government funding.

Legal challenges related to religious symbols in public settings continue to be dismissed over issues of taxpayer standing.

Yesterday the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an atheist activist's attempt to stop state funding of the restoration of Bald Knob Cross, an Illinois tourist attraction, because the activist lacks taxpayer standing according to recent Supreme Court decisions. In Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation Inc., the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that taxpayers can bring Establishment Clause challenges when funds are spent under legislative decisions but not administrative decisions, explains Religion Clause.

This limitation on church-state lawsuits was strengthened when the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge in April 2011 to Arizona's tax-credit-for-scholarship-donations program. CT reported how the Arizona ruling undercut a high-profile legal challenge to the longstanding housing allowance enjoyed by clergy. The Seventh Circuit also rejected a challenge to the National Day of Prayer in April 2011 over issues of taxpayer standing.

CT has spotlighted Supreme Court tussles over public crosses, as well as debate over whether memorial crosses should be considered secular.

Update (April 13, 2013): Less than one year after losing its tax fight in the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Destiny Christian Church has been sold to a realty developer. According to the Concord Monitor, the property "will be subdivided to build new homes, with the hope of selling part of an existing church building to a church and selling the remaining acreage as farmland."
-----

New Hampshire cities can tax churches on portions of their property deemed not to be used for religious purposes, according to a unanimous ruling by the state's Supreme Court.

In its first case addressing legislative prayer, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a New York town board's tradition of opening monthly meetings with prayer is unconstitutional because the town should have tried harder to find non-Christian speakers--even if that required recruiting beyond the town's borders.

The Town of Greece has opened board meetings with prayer since 1999. Two residents challenged the practice in 2008 because all the prayers had been offered by Christians. The town then had representatives of Judaism, Wicca, and the Baha'i faith offer prayers, but the residents filed suit once the prayers reverted to Christian-only in 2009 and 2010.

A lower court sided with the town, but three Second Circuit judges reversed its ruling, concluding "an objective, reasonable person would believe that the town’s prayer practice had the effect of affiliating the town with Christianity." Not because the prayers were sectarian per se; but because the town's "process for selecting prayer-givers virtually ensured a Christian viewpoint" because the town didn't actively solicit non-Christian speakers or -- given that the town has no non-Christian congregations within it -- go beyond its borders to recruit them.

Proclamations by Colorado governors for a state Day of Prayer are unconstitutional, the Colorado Court of Appeals recently ruled.

The three-judge panel ruled on state Day of Prayer proclamations issued from 2004 to 2009 after the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) challenged them. The court unanimously agreed that Colorado’s Day of Prayer is “predominantly religious,” thereby violating nonbelievers’ constitutional rights.

“[The proclamations] reflect an official belief in a God who answers prayers,” the court wrote. “At the same time, for those who do not believe in such a God, the proclamations tend to indicate that their nonbelief is not shared by the government that rules the State. In doing so, they undermine the premise that the government serves believers and nonbelievers equally.”

The court did not make any judgment on the National Day of Prayer, and it was quick to point out that its decision did not affect anyone’s right to pray.

Instead, the court wrote, the decision centered on the idea that “religious liberty protected by the Constitution is abridged when the State [sic] affirmatively sponsors the particular religious practice of prayer.”

In 2010, a U.S. District Judge ruled the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional after the FFRF filed suit. The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later overturned that ruling, stating the FFRF did not have standing because “a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury in fact.”

But the Colorado court ruled the FFRF had standing for this case, noting, “Unlike the narrower federal test for standing, plaintiffs in Colorado benefit from a relatively broad definition of the concept.”

The case was sent back to a trial court, which will consider whether a permanent injunction should be issued to prevent further proclamations for a Day of Prayer.

Update (Jan. 30): Aldersgate United Methodist Church has reached a tentative deal with the City of Rockland, the Bangor Daily News reports.

To solve the issue of Aldersgate's property tax exemption, the church "will create a [separate] nonprofit organization to own the property now being taxed by the city.... If all properties become exempt, the church will drop the lawsuit and both parties will pay their own expenses, according to Rockland city attorney Kevin Beal."
________________________________________

A Kentucky homeless shelter will have to close or relocate if city officials have their way.

Lexington's Community Inn, jointly run by Emmanuel Apostolic Church and the Catholic Action Center, inherited the building -- and thus the conditional-use permit -- of a failed church. But zoning officials say the shelter's activities, which have concerned neighbors, do not qualify to use the church permit.

"It's our opinion, it is not fundamentally a church, but is fundamentally a homeless shelter," Chris King, director of the division of planning, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.

"The problem is we have a different idea of what church really is," countered church elder James McDonald to the Herald-Leader. "The Community Inn is not a church as society sees it. But the presence of the Lord is in this place."

A revocation hearing will take place Friday.

CT recently covered a similar debate in Tennessee where the City of Chattanooga evicted a church which hosted concerts as an outreach to gangs, claiming it was "a business masquerading as a church."

A Wisconsin trial court judge denied a motion to dismiss charges against a convicted pastor who instructed his church members to use wooden rods to spank misbehaving children, some as young as two months old.

Philip Caminiti, pastor of Aleitheia Bible Church in Black Earth, Wisconsin, was convicted of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse in March. He faces up to six years of prison time; his sentencing hearing is scheduled for later this month.

Caminiti argued the convictions violate his right to religious freedom. But Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi disagreed, stating that though Caminiti had “a sincerely held religious belief” to use a rod to discipline young children, he failed to prove Wisconsin’s child abuse statue “places a burden” on that belief.

“Scripture doesn't specify how and when the rod should be used,” Sumi ruled.

In January, Christianity Today examined arguments for and against corporal punishment, as the misuse of biblical teaching on discipline can have deadly consequences.

A 10-year battle over a cross in the Mojave Desert has come to an end thanks to a federal judge’s final approval of a land swap.

The World War I memorial cross, erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), was at the center of a long legal conflict that eventually went to the Supreme Court.

The plan gives the acre of land where the cross has been located to two veterans’ groups in exchange for five acres of private property in the Mojave National Preserve. Congress had originally ordered the land swap in 2003, but opponents brought the case to the courts, arguing that the exchange amounted to preferential treatment.

However, in 2010 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts, allowing the cross to remain because the transfer would resolve any constitutional concerns. The cross was stolen less than a month later; VFW has promised to replace it.

Meanwhile, another cross at the center of potential litigation will likely be moved. Last month, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to Leo Fontaine, the mayor of Woonsocket, Rhode Island, arguing that a cross erected in 1921 as a World War I memorial violates the separation of church and state since it is located on city property.

John Ward, president of the city council, told the Associated Press that though he believes the cross is more of a historical symbol, the city can’t afford a lawsuit. Fontaine said the cross may be moved to a more prominent location on private property.

However, another Rhode Island atheist group says the cross ought to stay. Jason LaRose, a Woonsocket resident and the co-founder of Ocean State Atheists, told WJAR news the cross “only represents the soldiers who were killed, who were most likely Catholics.”

Christianity Today has spotlighted the Supreme Court’s tangled view of public crosses. CT also asked evangelical leaders whether the Supreme Court should consider memorial crosses as secular.

A federal judge in Virginia has proposed that two parties involved in a dispute over the display of the Ten Commandments at a public high school should consider modifying the display by removing the four Commandments that mention God.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia sued the Giles County School Board on behalf of a student over a Ten Commandments display at Narrows High School, arguing that it violated the First Amendment’s protection against endorsement of religion. The school board said the Commandments were part of a larger display of historical documents and therefore not religious.

The Commandments were already removed once from the school, but the school board voted 3-2 last summer to reinstall them after pressure from the community—a move that the ACLU argued was religion-based.

U.S. District Judge Michael Urbanski sent the case into mediation this week. “If indeed this issue is not about God, why wouldn’t it make sense for Giles County to say, ‘Let’s go back and just post the bottom six [commandments]?’” Urbanski said during the hearing.

Giles County hopes to resolve the issue without a trial, as it could face huge legal costs if the ACLU wins. Both sides will meet with Magistrate Judge Robert Ballou for mediation sessions in the coming weeks, The Roanoke Times reported.

Christianity Today has covered many Ten Commandments cases in the past, including extended coverage of the landmark case in Alabama. A 2005 editorial also highlighted the Supreme Court's inconsistent stance on the display of the Ten Commandments.

Florida voters will have a chance to change the religious freedom section of their state constitution this year.

If passed, Amendment 8 would remove the state’s “Blaine Amendment,” a ban of state money for religious or sectarian groups that critics say is a legal remnant of anti-Catholic bias. Currently, 37 states have Blaine Amendments; both the Florida and Georgia legislatures failed in their attempts to repeal their states’ amendments in 2010.

Later that year, Christianity Today reported on the ongoing battle over Blaine Amendments—specifically, a Florida court battle where two state-contracted Christian nonprofits were sued for using state funds to proselytize to residents at their halfway homes for substance abusers. (The state Supreme Court denied a review of the case in 2010; the case was on a circuit court’s docket as of March 2011.)

Amendment 8 will be on the November 6 ballot.

Update: Chicago-area churches are threatening to cancel free public programs—and that has city mayer Rahm Emmanuel listening. After nearly a year of butting heads with religious leaders over a program that removed a water-use fee exemption for religious institutions, the mayor will "take into account a recent letter to the city's 50 aldermen cautioning that the ... program poses a dire threat to churches and the social programs they offer in their communities."

The chairman of the United Kingdom’s Equality and Human Rights Commission has stirred up some debate after stating that religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws should be limited to houses of worship.

Trevor Phillips, speaking during a debate organized by the Religion and Society Research Program, also compared Christian groups seeking exemptions from equality laws to Muslims who want to implement Shari‘ah law in parts of Britain.

"The law stops at the door of the temple as far as I'm concerned," he said. "Institutions have to make a decision whether they want to [provide public services under public rules] … but you can’t say 'because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws'."

Phillips referred to several cases where religious groups have protested requirements that they not discriminate on sexual grounds, including Catholic adoption agencies and the owners of a Christian bed and breakfast who were ordered to pay damages after turning away gay couples.

"To me there's nothing different in principle with a Catholic adoption agency, or indeed Methodist adoption agency, saying the rules in our community are different and therefore the law shouldn't apply to us," Phillips said. "Why not then say Shari'ah can be applied to different parts of the country? It doesn't work."

The remarks drew almost instant criticism. George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, called the statement "ridiculous."

"We are a democracy in which Christianity is established in the Church of England and a nation profoundly influenced by this faith in its Catholic and Anglican heritage," he said. "We need lawmakers to respect this heritage and seek accommodation wherever a strongly held faith seems to clash with new legislation."

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Center, said Phillips’ assertion was "inflammatory" and "intolerant," adding that Phillips "fails to understand the nature of faith and what inspires faith and what makes agencies like Catholic adoption agencies so selfless."

However, the National Secular Society’s Keith Porteous Wood sided with Phillips. "There is no such thing as partial equality, and every time an exemption is made, someone else’s rights are compromised."

Phillips later dismissed the criticism and said his comments were not meant to be controversial. "You would have to really work hard to make what I said 'inflammatory."

In August, CT reported on Phillips’ assertion that though Christians face discrimination, politically motivated faith groups often blow it out of proportion.

Congregations affected by New York City's ban on worship in school buildings have already announced where they'll be meeting this weekend, but they could head back into the schools for at least another two weeks if they want to.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an injunction this morning barring the New York Board of Education from enforcing its worship ban for 10 days, effectively allowing congregations to continue meet in the public schools through the end of the month.

"The court’s order is a message of hope for fundamental freedoms in New York City," Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Jordan Lorence said in a press release. While Lorence continues to argue the churches' case before the district court, he encouraged efforts in the state legislature to repeal the ban to continue.

Earlier this week, Chief Judge Loretta Preska asked the city to delay its enforcement and work out an agreement with the churches. The city's lawyer, Jonathan Pines, said no. "This case has been litigated for 16 years,” he told reporters. “It's now time for it to come to an end and for the Department to be allowed to administer a policy that the appeals court found altogether constitutional." Pines additionally told Preska Tuesday that other groups have already filed applications to use the school buildings in the churches absence. "The hardship is entirely one of [the churches'] making," he said.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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

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."

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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:

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

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.