The Senate approved legislation today that broadened the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure attached to a $680 billion defense bill.

The bill has frustrated several conservative Christian groups who feared that pastors would see repercussions from the law. The latest version of the bill included new language that explicitly protected an excused person’s free exercise of religion.

Scholars and activists have disagreed over whether a minister could be prosecuted, if he or she preached against homosexuality and a parishioner would later commit a hate crime against someone for being gay.

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, said in a statement that the measure was "part of a radical social agenda that could ultimately silence Christians and use the force of government to marginalize anyone whose faith is at odds with homosexuality."

FRC also warns of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the end of the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Obama has promised to sign the hate crimes bill into law.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 22, 2009 | Comments (45)

A Virginia jail will stop censoring religious mail after protests from civil rights organizations that clerks had turned Bible-quoting missives from an inmate's mother into tattered strips of paper signed "Love, Mom."

Rappahannock Regional Jail authorities agreed to change the policy after receiving a letter signed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Rutherford Institute, Prison Fellowship, the Virginia Interfaith Center for Public Policy, the Friends Committee on National Legislation and the American Civil Liberties Union.

Prisons may block writings that pose security threats, including hate speech and X-rated images, but must allow access to otherwise religious materials, according to several court rulings and federal law.

"They can't treat religious materials like a knife or drugs or pornography," said Eric Rassbach, national litigation director for the Becket Fund.

Jail officials said the censorship was not motivated by content, but rather due to a policy that prohibits inmates from receiving swaths of computer printouts, which had been used to clog toilets and otherwise harass the guards. The cut-up correspondence in question had included
Christian material printed out from the Internet, marked up by the inmate's mother.

The amended policy will allow such messages to remain unscathed, "subject to the condition that (inmates) can only retain mail in their cell that can be stored neatly within the storage bin of the bunk and is not a fire hazard," wrote Joseph Higgs Jr., jail superintendent, in a statement. The ACLU announced the new policy on Monday (Aug. 10).

Rassbach said religious content clearly played a role in the censorship, however, and added that he hoped the successful outcry over this case would prompt others to think twice about maintaining or initiating similar practices.

"Prison officials should be aware that the Bible should not be censored as a dangerous item," he said. "It's something that can actually help them do their jobs, in terms of rehabilitating prisoners and bringing them back into society."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at August 12, 2009 | Comments (1)

The National Day of Prayer, held annually on the first Thursday of May, is today generating not just supplications to heaven, but wrangling on earth. The Obama administration, in a departure from its predecessors, is marking the day with a statement but not the President's attendance at a ceremony. Meanwhile, some religious groups and others are criticizing the President for stepping back from involvement. However, the administration and some Republican lawmakers are defending the constitutionality of the observance by fighting atheists in court.

Here is the text of the President's proclamation:

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.

It is in that spirit of unity and reflection that we once again designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world.

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a "National Day of Prayer."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in
more thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

Posted by Stan Guthrie at May 7, 2009 | Comments (10)

The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from a high school football coach who was banned from bowing his head during student-led team prayers.

Without comment Monday, the nation's highest court ended Coach Marcus Borden's efforts to overturn a township decision that as a public employee, Borden cannot mix religion with his work as a coach.

The high court's decision leaves intact a federal appeals court's April decision that Borden's desire to bow his head and take a knee during team prayer is an endorsement of religious activity at a public school.

Neither Borden, who has been the football coach at East Brunswick High School since 1983, nor his attorney, Ronald Riccio, could be reached for comment.

Borden has been fighting for the right to bow and kneel in prayer with his team since November 2005, when he filed a federal lawsuit arguing the school district's regulations were overly broad. He won a U.S. District Court ruling in July 2006 in which a judge decided those rules were unconstitutional, but that decision was reversed at the appellate level.

Riccio asked the Supreme Court in October to review the appeals court decision, arguing then that Borden's case was of national importance because "it addresses what public school educators are permitted to say and do when public school students engage in religious
activities in their presence."

Richard Katskee, an attorney with Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represented the board of education in court, said in a prepared statement that "children have a clear right to attend public schools without religious pressures being brought to bear by
school personnel."

"Coach Borden was out of bounds, and the courts were right to blow the whistle," Katskee said. "I hope that other coaches and school personnel learn a lesson from this."

Todd Simmens, president of the East Brunswick Board of Education, in the same statement said "public school officials simply may not engage with students in religious activity."

"The board of education and district officials have, throughout this case, made certain no school employee supervises or otherwise participates in any type of prayer with our students," Simmens said. "Needless to say, the board is pleased that, in this case, the courts reaffirmed this long-standing constitutional principle."

The school district said Borden had a long history of leading prayers before he was ordered to stop after complaints from some parents. Borden resigned as coach in protest of the school board ruling in 2005, but rescinded the resignation within a week and hired Riccio to represent him in his quest to coach the team the way he had for more than two decades.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 3, 2009 | Comments (13)

The Pennsylvania state General Assembly spent $13,700 this year on 220 Bibles and other religious texts for legislators for taking oaths, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

All but seven of the 203 House members received one, with 72 picking the New American Catholic Bible, making it the most popular choice.

State Rep. Chris Ross (R., Chester) got a copy of the Quran. He said yesterday that he took the Jan. 6 oath on his own Bible, but ordered the Muslim holy book because he had always wanted to read it.

State Rep. Dan Frankel also got a Quran, but it was an ordering mistake. He traded it in for another copy of the Torah - the sixth he has received from taxpayers since first being elected in 1998.

After it was announced that President Obama would use Abraham Lincoln's Bible, Noreen Malone wrote for Slate about how after Grover Cleveland, it turned into BYOB, where presidents would often bring a family Bible.

(h/t Howard M. Friedman)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at March 3, 2009 | Comments (5)

A student in California is suing Los Angeles City College, saying his professor reacted inappropriately to his speech in class against same-sex marriage, Gale Holland writes for the Los Angeles Times.

Student Jonathan Lopez says his professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to "ask God what your grade is," the suit says.

Lopez is represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, sued unsuccessfully to stop the release of the names and addresses of Proposition 8 donors, who said they had been harassed during the weeks of demonstrations after it passed.

Holland writes that the case tests the balance between free speech and offensive speech, and it's all part of "the emotional aftermath of Proposition 8."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 17, 2009 | Comments (9)

Civic debate seems to be turning ugly in America. After the pro-marriage Proposition 8 was passed in California, angry gay-rights activists vented their fury on Mormons and Christians, who publicly opposed marriage by homosexuals. Pro-life activists have long experienced social marginalization at the hands of pro-choice organizations and their sympathizers in the mainstream media, according to the final article by the late Richard John Neuhaus. And now Jews in the Chicago area are facing the wrath of vandals responding to Israel's Gaza invasion. "This touches a raw nerve," Rabbi Zvi Engel of Congregation Or Torah in Skokie said, responding to "Death to Israel!" slogans and other provocations on area synagogues. "You have to remember, in our congregations, there are people who remember this happening in Europe" at the start of the Holocaust. Even in America, where freedom of speech is enshrined as a core value, many seek to win debates in the public square by any means necessary.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at January 12, 2009 | Comments (4)

Led by a California atheist who has tried to remove the phrase "under God" from the pledge of allegiance, a group of atheists filed suit in federal court Tuesday (Dec. 30) to block prayers and mentions of God at President-elect Barack Obama's inauguration on Jan 20.

Michael Newdow, joined in his complaint by 11 atheist and humanist groups, filed similar, unsuccessful suits in 2001 and 2005, when President Bush was sworn in. He has also tried to remove the reference to God in the pledge of allegiance, arguing that it constitutes an illegal government endorsement of religion.

The suit names Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who will swear in the new president, as well as California megachurch pastor Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who will deliver the invocation and benediction, respectively, and other inauguration planners.

By adding the words "so help me God" to the oath of office, as Supreme Court chief justices and presidents have done since at least 1933, Roberts would "infuse the inaugural ceremony with purely religious dogma," the atheists charge. The atheists also object to the place of the Bible in the ceremony -- Obama has asked for the copy used by Abraham Lincoln in 1861 -- and the delivery of opening and closing prayers.

The atheists are not suing Obama, however, because he, "like all other individuals, has Free Exercise rights," the suit says, referring to the Constitution's protection of religious expression. The problem would come if Roberts "prompts" Obama to recite the phrase, according to the atheists.

"The use of sectarian prayer and religious phrases during the inauguration not only violates a clear reading of the First Amendment, it serves as a justification for the breach of church-state separation in other areas," said Bob Ritter, staff attorney for the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, the legal arm of the American Humanist Association.

Warren's inclusion in the ceremony has also been criticized by liberals, particularly gay rights groups, who object to his vocal denunciations of same-sex marriage.

In a video sent to members of his Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., Warren fired back at his critics, accusing them of "Christophobia" and "hate speech," according to Associated Baptist Press.

"Some people feel today that if you disagree with them, then that's hate speech," Warren said. "If you disagree with them, you either hate them or you're afraid of them. I'm neither afraid of gays nor do I hate gays. In fact I love them, but I do disagree with some of their
beliefs."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 31, 2008 | Comments (12)

In South Carolina, a district court has temporarily halted the production of state-sponsored license plates that declare "I Believe" and feature an illustration of a cross superimposed on a stained-glass window.

In Vermont, meanwhile, an appeals court is mulling whether a vanity plate featuring John 3:16, the verse about Jesus saving the world, should be permitted on that state's roads.

And in Arizona, a court has ruled it's OK to give residents the option of having the words "Choose Life" on state plates.

The question is no longer, "What Would Jesus Drive?" Now, it's more likely to be, "What's on his license plate?"

Across the country, the small metal plates affixed to car bumpers have become the latest battleground for church-state disputes and questions of free speech.

"It's hard to draw a line between what is government speech and what is private speech when it comes to license plates," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington. "Some people want to use their license plate to proclaim their beliefs and that puts the state in an awkward position because if they allow one message then they have to allow others."

The South Carolina case is one of the more unusual -- and overt -- examples of religious speech on a license plate. The "I Believe" phrase and accompanying artwork were adopted unanimously by the state legislature, prompting a lawsuit by the Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of Unitarian, Jewish and Christian clergy and the Hindu American Foundation.

"I know some may quickly label this as an anti-Christian suit and I don't think that that's what is at issue," explained Suhag Shukla, legal counsel for the Maryland-based Hindu group. "It was more the state endorsement of religion, and such a blatant endorsement of religion."

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie sided with the religious groups in a Dec. 15 opinion, halting distribution of the plates while the legal process continues.

"... (J)ust as a reasonable, objective observer would likely conclude that the state of South Carolina was promoting tourism with the Web site address 'Travel2SC.com' on its standard-issue plate," she wrote, "that same observer could reasonably believe the state is promoting Christianity through its legislatively-created and DMV-designed and marketed `I Believe' plate."

Beth Parks, a spokeswoman for the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, said the state has complied with the preliminary injunction, which directed the department to remove advertising about the plate from its Web site.

"The people who submitted the $5 pre-paid application ... are receiving refunds," she said.

Beyond disputes over state-sanctioned specialty plates, Vermont driver Shawn Byrne is waiting for an appeals court to decide if he can use letters and symbols on his own vanity plate to spread the gospel. He hopes to put "JOHN316," "JN316" or "JN36TN" on his vehicle.

"Everybody knows when they're driving down the road and they see a vanity plate that this person behind the wheel is speaking, not the state," said Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney with the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, who defended Byrne at a Dec. 8 hearing.

Already, courts have permitted individuals to speak through specialized plates with messages to "Choose Life" sponsored by organizations such as the Arizona Life Coalition.

Arizona officials had initially rejected a "Choose Life" license plate, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that policy amounted to viewpoint discrimination. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Arizona officials. More than a dozen states offer "Choose Life" plates and more are considering them.

Texas lawmakers are considering a bill to create a "Choose Life" specialty license plate that would raise money for women considering adoption. "The majority of Texans believe in the sanctity of life, and this license plate will give them a means to tell the world in a subtle but meaningful way, while providing support to pregnant women making the decision to chose adoption," Gov. Rick Perry said at a Dec. 18 news conference.

As the issue of putting faith and morality on license plates wends its way through courts and legislatures, experts differ on how significant the disputes are.

Albert Menendez, editor of Voice of Reason, the newsletter of Americans for Religious Liberty, said he views the question of government supporting faith-based programs, or religious symbols on public property, as more prominent.

"It seems, to me, far more important than license plates," he said, "but symbolism is important in America."

But Elizabeth Stevens, an attorney with Americans United, ranks the "I Believe" case right up there with former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore's unsuccessful attempt to keep a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.

"It was physically larger (and) it's only in one place, but these plates, theoretically, could have been on cars all over the state," she said.

Vanity plates appear on more than 9.3 million U.S. motor vehicles, according to a joint study by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and the Web site LCNS2ROM.com, and officials say the interest in messages-in-motion is only likely to continue.

"People are certainly passionate about license plates," said Jason D. King, spokesman for the association. "They are vehicles for personal expression."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 23, 2008 | Comments (4)

The American Atheists have sued the commonwealth of Kentucky after learning that a law requires the state's Office of Homeland Security to declare its reliance on God for safety.

The New Jersey-based atheist group filed suit Tuesday in a Kentucky court seeking a ruling that a 2002 law stating that "the safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance on God" is unconstitutional.

The atheists are particularly concerned about a 2006 law that calls for the divine-reliance wording to be spelled out on a plaque at the entrance of the state's Emergency Operations Center.

"It's part of the law to publicize that God is necessary for homeland security," said David Silverman, spokesman for American Atheists. "That's part of the law and it's patently unconstitutional. It's so offensive, not just from an atheistic point of view but from an
American point of view because these people are trying to bring the
religious debate into homeland security."

The laws were both sponsored by Democratic delegate Tom Riner of Louisville, Ky., who also is a Southern Baptist minister.

"It's a frivolous lawsuit that American Atheists has launched to attempt to censor and suppress the publication of a key law that acknowledges divine providence," said Riner, pastor of Christ is King Baptist Church.

He said the laws did not get much attention when he sponsored them. But he's getting attention now, and the state is being sued, after the Lexington News-Leader wrote a story about them in late November.

Jay Blanton, a spokesman for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, said he couldn't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but added: "There's a law in place and it's our intent to follow the law."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 3, 2008 | Comments (20)

The Creation Museum and the Cincinnati Zoo have broken up a partnership after the zoo, which receives public support through a tax levy, received angry calls and e-mails.

Dan Horn of The Enquirer reports that a ticket deal offered $25.95 tickets to both the zoo Festival of Lights and the museum's Bethlehem’s Blessing, which features a live nativity and the streets of Bethlehem.

Adelle M. Banks writes this story for Religion News Service:

The Cincinnati Zoo has dropped a business arrangement with the nearby Creation Museum after it received numerous complaints about a joint Christmas promotion.

Officials at the museum expressed disappointment that their plans to offer a reduced price on a package of tickets to both attractions had ended after less than three days.

"I am ... personally saddened that this organization I esteem so highly would find it necessary to back out of this relationship," said Ken Ham, founder and president of the museum in Petersburg, Ky. "At the same time, I have learned that the zoo received hundreds of complaints from what appear to be some very intolerant people, and so I understand the zoo's perspective."

The Cincinnati Enquirer said zoo officials found themselves embroiled in a debate between creationists who support the museum and evolutionists who oppose it after agreeing to a deal that would reduce entry to the zoo's "Festival of Lights" and the museum's "Bethlehem's
Blessings."

"It's not about us endorsing them or them endorsing us," said Chad Yelton, a spokesman for the zoo, told the newspaper. "That's wasn't the intention of anything we were doing."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 2, 2008 | Comments (26)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has responded to a removal of the organization's billboard promoting a world without religion. Not surprisingly, they're suing Rancho Cucamonga and the city officials who encouraged the billboard operator to take it down:

"It does appear that the city was engaging in this officious intervention and has violated our free speech and our establishment clause rights," said foundation co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "They used their intimidation powers against the billboard company, I believe."

The billboard, which bore a stained-glass motif and the Wisconsin-based group's name and Web address, went up around Nov. 13 and was taken down a week later, Gaylor said.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeks compensatory and punitive damages from Rancho Cucamonga.

The foundation contemplated suing the billboard firm, General Outdoor Co., which violated a two-month contract. The group, however, said it didn't want to antagonize billboard companies. The foundation is more focused on state involvement in religion, Gaylor said.

"It's much more serious for the government to censor than for private entities to censor," she said.

To be sure, religion is ensconced in Inland Empire public life - not just presidential elections. I've mentioned before an article I wrote when I was at The Sun about how local government's were responding to a court decree that they not open municipal meetings with prays that invoke a specific deity. Praying to God was deemed OK. But Jesus or Allah or Buddha - that's off limits.

But there is no way to prevent it, and many city officials have no interest in doing so.

(Originally published at The God Blog.)

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 2, 2008 | Comments (0)

A Kentucky lawmaker is frustrated that the state's Homeland Security office doesn't currently mention God in its mission statement or on its website.

John Cheves of the Lexington Herald-Leader writes:

Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God's benevolent protection in its reports, and it must post a plaque at the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center with an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

State Rep. Tom Riner, a Southern Baptist minister, tucked the God provision into Homeland Security legislation as a floor amendment that lawmakers overwhelmingly approved two years ago.

As amended, Homeland Security's religious duties now come before all else, including its distribution of millions of dollars in federal grants and its analysis of possible threats.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 1, 2008 | Comments (12)

A federal court has ruled that the Arizona License Plate Commission must approve an anti-abortion group's "Choose Life" specialty license plate.

The Arizona Life Coalition applied for the specialty license plate in 2002, but the Arizona License Plate Commission, which oversees the requests, rejected its application.

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Center for Arizona Policy filed a suit in September of 2003.

Pro-life groups shouldn't be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs," ADF senior counsel Gary McCaleb said.

Last January, the 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the commission had violated the Arizona Life Coalition's First Amendment right to free speech by rejecting its application. The commission appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the decision, but the high court refused to hear the case.

In a decision issued Nov. 19, U.S. District Judge Paul G. Rosenblatt ordered the commission to convene by Jan. 23 and approved the license plates.

"Many other groups have been allowed to participate in the Arizona specialty plate program. The commission had no legitimate reason to selectively exclude this group," McCaleb said. "We're pleased that the plates will soon be available to the public."

The "Choose Life" license plates are available in at least 19 states, according to Choose Life, Inc., a Florida-based non-profit that waged a six-year legal battle to make Florida the first state to offer the plates.

South Carolina, which offers a "Choose Life" plate, will soon start making "I Believe" license plates that feature a cross and stained glass window. Those plates are already the subject of a legal challenge by Jewish and Hindu groups.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at November 21, 2008 | Comments (0)