Senate Passes DADT Repeal for Obama's Signature; Opponents Vow To Fight On

AP reports that the U.S. Senate today voted 65-31 to approve and send to the President for his signature the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. An identical bill was passed by the House earlier this week. (See prior posting.) The bill provides for ending of DADT 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify that implementation is consistent with military effectiveness and readiness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention. The President has promised to sign the bill into law. Earlier today he issued a statement reading in part:

It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed. It is time to allow gay and lesbian Americans to serve their country openly. I urge the Senate to send this bill to my desk so that I can sign it into law.

In response to the Senate's action,  the Freedom Federation, a coalition of conservative religious and public policy groups issued a statement promising to fight for a reversal of Congress' action, saying:

Our armed forces should take heart, because the American people will not turn its back on you. This vote happened because opportunistic Senators – only days before Christmas – put political interest groups above supporting our men and women in uniform.

This action will be overturned in the next Congress because it breaks the bond of trust that must exist between the military and those who command in the Pentagon and Congress. Today’s vote will prove as costly to its proponents as ObamaCare was to its advocates. We promise a full mobilization of faith-based and policy organizations, veterans, and military families in the states of every Senator who voted for repeal of DADT against the advice of our service chiefs and during a time of war. Those Senators – and the Pentagon leaders responsible for this breach of trust – should understand that they will be the object of concerted political action against them.

New York MTA Accepts Controversial Anti-Mosque Ad After Lawsuit Is Filed

After a lawsuit was filed on Friday, the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority agreed to permit a banner ad on its buses, sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative opposing the proposed mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. (Press release from David Yerushalmi law firm). The ad (photo) reads "Why There?",  and equates the"WTC Jihad Attack" with "WTC Mega Mosque". The federal lawsuit (full text of complaint in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, (SD NY, Aug. 6, 2010), alleges that MTA's objections to the ad for equating the proposed mosque with the 9-11 attack amount to content- and viewpoint-based censorship in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. The complaint includes examples of other controversial religious and political ads accepted by MTA. Exhibits to the complaint also show various amended versions of the ad submitted during negotiations with MTA-- each changing the way in which the Twin Towers and the plane attack on them are depicted.

Mayor Bloomberg Lauds Religious Liberty While Others Challenge Mosque Decision

Following yesterday's vote by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission that essentially refused to block plans to build a mosque and Islamic Center near Ground Zero, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, in view of the Statue of Liberty and surrounded by religious leaders on Governors' Island, praised the Commission's decision and gave an impassioned defense of the American tradition of religious liberty. Here are some excerpts, but the full text is worth reading:

Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion..... In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780's.... 

This morning, the City's Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned..... The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship. The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right....This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another. The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said 'no' to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

Meanwhile, the American Center for Law & Justice, which represents a New York firefighter who survived 9-11, announced it would file a petition in state court challenging the Commission's vote as an abuse of discretion.

UPDATE: Here is the full text of the complaint in ACLJ's lawsuit challenging the Commission's decision. The case is Brown v. New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, (Sup. Ct. NY County, filed 8/4/2010).

Lawsuit Challenges Detroit Area Bus Authority's Refusal of Ad Aimed At Muslims

A federal lawsuit was filed yesterday against the Detroit-area transportation authority challenging its refusal to accept a bus ad directed at Muslims leaving their faith. The ad, sponsored by the Freedom Defense Initiative, read: "Fatwa on your head? Is your family or community threatening you? Leaving Islam? Got questions? Get Answers!" The complaint (full text) in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation ("SMART"), (ED MI, filed 5/27/2010), claims that refusal to accept the ad for display on SMART buses amounted to a content and viewpoint based restriction on free speech in a public forum, as well a a denial of equal protection of the law. Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing filing or the lawsuit. (See prior related posting.)

Court Rejects Free Exercise Defense To Bald Eagle Act Prosecution

In United States v. Bertucci, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119228 (D NE, Dec. 22, 2009), a Nebraska federal district court accepted the recommendations of a federal magistrate (2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119230, Nov. 25, 2009) and denied a motion to dismiss charges under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that had been brought against defendant. Defendant, a member of the Omaha Tribe and the Native American Church, claimed that the charges violated his free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Without a permit, he killed two bald eagles to use in a feathering ceremony for his children that he wished to conduct while his grandfather was still alive. Eagle parts are available to members of recognized tribes from the National Eagle Repository. The court held:

[T]he repository and permit processes, while arguably inconvenient, do not impose a substantial burden on the defendant's right to practice his religion. The evidence established that a tribal member would have to wait ninety days to six months for delivery of feathers from the repository. This moderate delay does not deny the defendant a reasonable opportunity to practice his religion. Alternatively, the court finds that even if the Eagle Protection Act imposed a substantial burden, the government has met its burden to show that the repository and permit process are the least restrictive means to further the government's compelling interest in protecting and preserving the bald eagle population.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Konstantinos G. Margaritis, The Freedom of Religion and its Limits in Greece and the Netherlands: A Comparative Approach, (December 15, 2009).
• Justin R. La Mort, The Soundtrack to Genocide: Using Incitement to Genocide in the Bikindi Trial to Protect Free Speech and Uphold the Promise of Never Again, (Interdisciplinary Journal for Human Rights Law, Vol. 4, Forthcoming).
• Michael James O'Connor, Legitimate Defense of Civil Rights or Raw Congressional Power Grab? The Constitutionality of the Freedom of Choice Act, (October 28, 2009).
• Stephen Matthew Feldman, Divided We Fall: Religion, Politics, and the Lemon Entanglements Prong, (First Amendment Law Review, Vol. 7, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Nicole C. O'Neal, The Development of Islamic Finance in America: The Future of Islamic Real Estate Investment Trusts, 44 Real Property, Trust & Estate Law Journal 279-297 (2009).

New Books

• Dawinder S. Sidhu & Neha Singh Gohil, Civil Rights in Wartime: The Post 9/11 Sikh Experience, (Ashgate Publishing Group, Dec. 2009).
• Lake Lambert III, Spirituality, Inc.: Religion in the American Workplace, (NYU Press, Dec. 2009).
• Stig Jarle Hansen, Atle Mesoy, and Tuncay Kardas (eds.), The Borders of Islam: Exploring Samuel Huntington’s Faultlines from Al-Andalus to the Virtual Ummah, (Columbia University Press, Nov. 2009).

State Department Releases 2009 Report On International Religious Freedom

The State Department yesterday submitted to Congress its 2009 Report on International Religious Freedom as required by Section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. At a press conference announcing release of the report Secretary of State Clinton (full text of remarks) said in part:

The President has emphasized that faith should bring us together, and this year's report has a special focus on efforts to promote interfaith dialogue and tolerance..... I obviously believe that our country has been strengthened by its long tradition of religious pluralism. From the largest denominations to the very smallest congregations, American religious bodies and faith-based organizations have helped to create a more just and compassionate society. Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.....

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

After Secretary Clinton's remarks, Assistant Secretary of State Michael S. Posner answered extensive questions from the press (full text of press conference). Posner clarified that information in the report being released would be used over the next few months to make judgments on which countries should remain on, be taken off or be added to the list of "countries of particular concern"(CPC) -- those with particularly problematic religious freedom records. This report did not make those designations.

The U.S. Helsinki Commission issued a release praising the State Department's report. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was more critical, issuing a statement urging the Obama administration to take stronger steps than it has so far. USCIRF Chairman Leonard Leo said: "Both Democratic and Republican administrations have underutilized the 'country of particular concern' designation." He emphasized differences between USCIRF and the State Department, and called for stronger action than in the past against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Vietnam.

The Washington-based Institute for Religion & Public Policy issued a release that applauded Secretary Clinton's statements but strongly criticized the Obama Administration for not yet appointing an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom. [Thanks to Joel Katz (Relig. & State in Israel) for the lead.]

Sikh Group Wants Governor To Veto Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Yesterday the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund wrote Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, asking him to veto the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786) which was passed by the state legislature several weeks ago. (Full text of letter.) The bill generally requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious practices and observances. SALDEF's concern, however, is the provision in the bill that still allows public and charter schools to prohibit teachers from wearing religious dress while engaged in the performance of duties as a teacher. This presumably would allow school districts to ban Sikh teachers from wearing their religiously-mandated dastaars (turbans). (SALDEF release.) The letter urges the governor to "veto SB 786, as proposed, and ask the Oregon legislature to approve a version of the bill that honestly and comprehensively protects religious freedom in the workplace."

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Richard W. Garnett, Judicial Enforcement of the Establishment Clause, (Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming).
• Abner Greene, Three Theories of Religious Equality...and of Exemptions, (Texas Law Review, Vol. 87, No. 963, 2009).
• Simon Butt, Polygamy and Mixed Marriage in Indonesia: Islam and the Marriage Law in the Courts, (in Indonesia: Law and Society, T. Lindsey, ed., Federation Press, 2008).
• Thomas Charles Berg, Religious-School Financing and Educational Pluralism in the American Tradition, (Rivista Antonianum, 2009).
• Gregory A. Kalscheur, Conscience and Citizenship: The Primacy of Conscience for Catholics in Public Life, (Journal of Catholic Social Thought, Vol. 6, No. 2, Summer 2009).
• Jessica Knouse, From Identity Politics to Ideology Politics, (Utah Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Michael Kent Curtis, Be Careful What You Wish For: Gays, Dueling High School T-Shirts, and the Perils of Suppression, (Wake Forest Law Review, Forthcoming).
• Nelson Tebbe, Excluding Religion: A Reply, (University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 157, 2009).

From Bepress:

• Rahma Hersi, A Value Oriented Legal Theory for Muslim Countries in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Both Islamic Law and Common Law Systems, (Cornell Law School Graduate Student Papers Series, Paper 29, April 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Kyle Duncan, Misunderstanding Freedom from Religion: Two Cents on Madison's Three Pence, 9 Nevada Law Journal 32-62 (2008).
• Gene R. Nichol, Establishing Inequality, (Reviewing Martha C. Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality.) 107 Michigan Law Review 913-930 (2009).
• Bishop Thomas J.Paprocki, Address. Annual Meeting of the National Diocesan Attorneys Association, As the Pendulum Swings from Charitable Immunity to Bankruptcy, Bringing It to Rest with Charitable Viability, 48 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 1-18 (2009).
• Joshua Foster, Prophets, Cartoons, and Legal Norms: Rethinking the United Nations Defamation of Religion Provisions, 48 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 19-57 (2009).
• Harry G. Hutchison, Work, the Social Question, Progress and the Common Good? (Reviewing Recovering Self-Evident Truths: Catholic Perspectives on American Law, edited by Michael A. Scaperlanda and Teresa Stanton Collett), 48 Journal of Catholic Legal Studies 59-116 (2009).

Recent Books:

• Daniel O Conkle, Constitutional Law: The Religion Clauses, Second Edition, (Foundation Press, 2009), excerpts on SSRN.
• Steven P. Miller, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, March 2009), reviewed in the New York Times.

Recent Articles and Books of Interest

From SSRN:

• Robert Eli Rosen, Samson the Judge: Religion and Violence in Milton's SAMSON AGONISTES, University of Miami Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-09, March 6, 2009).

From SmartCILP:

• Celine Abramschmitt, The Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition: Religious Morality, Social Science, and the Establishment Clause, 3 Florida International University Law Review 113-186 (2007).
• Mark W. Cordes, Religion as Speech: The Growing Role of Free Speech Jurisprudence in Protecting Religious Liberty, 38 Southwestern Law Review 235-286 (2008).
• Jay Michaelson, Chaos, Law, and God: The Religious Meanings of Homosexuality, 15 Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 41-119 (2008).
• Yuval Sinai, The Doctrine of Affirmative Defense in Civil Cases--Between Common Law and Jewish Law, 34 North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial Regulation 111-178 (2008).

Recent Books:

• Thomas F. Farr, World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security, (Oxford Univ. Press, 2008).
• David Novak, In Defense of Religious Liberty, (ISI Books, 2009).
• Stephen Spector, Evangelicals and Israel: The Story of American Christian Zionism, (Oxford Univ. Press, Nov. 2008).

Likely Civil Rights Division Head Disclosed

Legal Times reported Friday that the likely nominee to head the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division in the Obama administration is Thomas Saenz, counsel to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. The likely nominee, a Yale Law School graduate, worked at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund prior to joining Mayor Villaraigosa's administration. The Civil Rights Division enforces federal anti-discrimination statutes, including bans on religious discrimination.

Meanwhile the Justice Department has released a publication, The Accomplishments of the U.S. Department of Justice 2001-2009. It lauds its comprehensive initiative to protect religious freedom, and its creation of a new position of Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination. The Civil Rights Division prioritized investigation of bias crimes against Muslims, Sikhs, Arabs and South Asians, and developed a comprehensive program for enforcement of RLUIPA.

Italian Suit Challenging Baptism Dropped

In Italy, the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics has dropped a lawsuit on behalf of a plaintiff who was attempting to have his name deleted from a baptism register. The suit challenged the right of parents to have their children baptized. According to World Net Daily, the suit alleged that since the law does not allow parents to enroll their children in organizations like labor unions, parents should also not be able to decide that their children should become members of religious associations. The complaint cited protection of children's religious freedom and Italian Constitutional Court precedents on free will and personal privacy in religious decisions. Alliance Defense Fund, which was involved in convincing the group to drop its lawsuit as frivolous, warned that while "such lawsuits may seem far-fetched, ... foreign legal decisions are increasingly cited in American courts."

Recent Articles and Books on Law & Religion, Church-State

From SSRN:

• Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Ball on a Needle: Hein V. Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Future of Establishment Clause Adjudication, (Brigham Young University Law Review, Forthcoming Feb. 2008).
  
• David B. Kopel, Self-Defense in Asian Religions, (Liberty Law Review, Vol. 2, p. 79, 2007).
  
• David R. Barnhizer & Daniel D. Barnhizer, Myth, Magic and Mystery: Defending the Hidden Order of the Rule of Law, (Cleveland-Marshall Legal Studies Paper No. 07-149, Oct. 16, 2007).
  
• John Copeland Nagle, The Evangelical Debate Over Climate Change, (University of St. Thomas Law Journal, Forthcoming).
  
• JoEllen Lind, What Counts as Neutrality? The Religion and Race Cases Compared, (Valparaiso University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-04).
  
• David B. Kopel, Dhimmitude and Disarmament, (George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal, Forthcoming).
  
• Steven Douglas Smith, How Is America 'Divided by God'?, (Mississippi College Law Review, Vol. 27, 2007).

From SmartCILP:

• Ryan Spear, What We Talk About When We Talk About God (Reviewing Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion; Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation; and E. O. Wilson, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth), 1 Harvard Law & Policy Review 495-506 (2007).

Recent Books:

• Forrest Church, So Help Me God: The Founding Fathers and the First Great Battle Over Church and State, (Harcourt, Sept. 10, 2007), reviewed by the Deseret Morning News.
  
• D. Michael Lindsay, Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evagelicals Joined the American Elite, (Oxford Univ. Press, Aug. 2007), reviewed in the Wall Street Journal.

Recent Articles and Books-- Religion & State In U.S. and Abroad

Articles: (from SmartCILP):

• Robert John Araujo, S.J., The Transnational Perspective of the Church: The Embryonic Cloning Debate and Stem Cell Research, 22 Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 497-507 (2006).
  
• Jonathan F. Wills, My God My Choice: The Mature Minor Doctrine and Adolescent Refusal of Life-Saving or Sustaining Medical Treatment Based Upon Religious Beliefs, 22 Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 233-300 (2006).

Recent Books on Church-State Issues in the U.S.:

• Tracy Fessenden, Culture and Redemption: Religion, the Secular, and American Literature, (Princeton University Press, Nov. 2006).
  
• Christopher L. Eisgruber & Lawrence G. Sager, Religious Freedom and the Constitution, (Harvard University Press, Jan. 2007).

Recent Books on Religion and State In Europe and Asia:

• John T. Sidel, Riots, Pogroms, Jihad: Religious Violence in Indonesia, (Cornell University Press, Dec. 2006).
  
• Paul A. Hanebrink, In Defense of Christian Hungary: Religion, Nationalism, and Antisemitism, 1890–1944, (Cornell University Press, Aug. 2006).
  
• Genevieve Zubrzycki, The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland, (University of Chicago Press, Fall 2006).
  
• Mujiburrahman, Feeling Threatened: Muslim-Christian Relations in Indonesia’s New Order, (Amsterdam University Press, 2006).

Compromise On Chaplains In Defense Appropriations Act

On Friday, Congress passed the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations Act before it adjourned for its election break. The bill had been held up over language on military chaplains. The House version would have assured chaplains that they could pray according to the dictates of their own conscience, except for narrow limitations compelled by military necessity. (See prior posting.) The Senate version did not contain this language. The Conference Committee eliminated completely from the bill any language about chaplains. However the Conference Committee Report included language directing the Air Force and the Navy to rescind recent policies that they had adopted, and requiring them to reinstate earlier policies:

The conferees direct that the Secretary of the Air Force rescind the policy and revised interim guidelines concerning the exercise of religion in the Air Force issued on February 9, 2006, and direct that the Secretary of the Air Force reinstate the policy that was set fort in Air Force directive 52-1 dated 1 July 1999. The conferees further direct that the Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7C dated February 21, 2006, titled "Religious Ministry within the Department f the Navy" and direct that the Secretary of the Navy reinstate the policy that was set forth in the Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7B dated October 12, 2000.

The regulations that Congress ordered rescinded had been explicit in calling on chaplains to offer non-sectarian prayers when officiating at military events other than religious services. The earlier versions that are to be reinstated are less explicit on this issue. (Background on Navy policy. Background on Air Force policy.)

This is merely a temporary solution, however, to the debate over the extent to which military chaplains should be permitted to offer explicitly sectarian prayers at service-wide ceremonies with interfaith audiences. Those on both sides claimed that the compromise was a temporary victory. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said:

In a temporary victory, Congress rolled back those regulations that were causing the difficulty for the chaplains and reinstated earlier regulations that were more protective of the free exercise of religion. Congress also said that they will visit this issue fully in January when the new Congress returns. We anticipate major hearings on these issues.

On the other side, Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said that keeping the House language out of the final bill was a victory.

Many New Articles Of Interest Have Recently Appeared

From American Political Science Association:
Carolyn M. Warner & Manfred W. Wenner, Religion and the Political Organization of Muslims in Europe, (Perspectives on Politics, Sept. 2006).

From SSRN:
Tanya Marie Johnson, The Defense of Marriage Act and the Establishment Clause , (April 21, 2006).

From Bepress:
Jennifer Kreder, Undoing the Native American Graves and Repartriation Act, (September 6, 2006).

Elisabeth D. Reid, The Faith Based and Community Initiative and the Challenge Posed by the Establishment Clause, (September 9, 2006).

Andrew Koppelman, Conscience, Volitional Necessity, and Religious Exemptions, (September 15, 2006).

Kojo Yelpaala, Legal Consciousness and Contractual Obligations, (September 19, 2006).

From SmartCILP:
Adlia Abusharaf, Women in Islamic Communities: The Quest for Gender Justice Research, 28 Human Rights Quarterly 714-728 (2006).

Waheeda Amien, Overcoming the Conflict Between the Right to Freedom of Religion and Women's Rights to Equality: a South African Case Study of Muslim Marriages, 28 Human Rights Quarterly 729-754 (2006).

Nora O'Callaghan, Lessons from Pharaoh and the Hebrew Midwives: Conscientious Objection to State Mandates As a Free Exercise Right, 39 Creighton Law Review 561-639 (2006).

Daniel J. Rosenthal, Charitable Choice Programs and Title VII's Co-religionist Exemption, 39 Creighton Law Review 641-665 (2006).

Panel: The History, Religion, and Philosophy of American Exceptionalism. Articles by Claes G. Ryn, Joseph Boyle, William T. Cavanaugh and Charles J. Reid, Jr. 3 University of St. Thomas Law Journal 211-310 (2005).

Two Interesting New Online Sites Created

Two new interesting websites have just come on line. The first is Faithful Democrats. In an introductory posting, Tennessee Senator Roy Herron says:

I am tired of politicians, partisans, and preachers spelling God "G-O-P." But make no mistake — regardless of how wrong they are or how false their doctrine is, they have been frighteningly effective. Now many Americans think Jesus never rode a donkey and today rides only an elephant. The truth is, God cannot be held hostage by any political party. And American Christians should not be either.

The AP yesterday reported on the Democrats' new online initiative. [Thanks to Mainstream Baptist for the lead.]

The second entry into cyberspace is a new blog from the Alliance Defense Fund (news release), called ConstitutionallyCorrect.com. The blog has been created to focus on issues of concern to ADF, such as religious freedom in order to be able to spread the Gospel, the sanctity of human life and traditional family values. (See ADF's website.)

Both sites have been added to Religion Clause's sidebar.

Petitioners Support Military Chaplains Praying "In Jesus Name"

Religion News Service yesterday reported that Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, has obtained over 80,000 signatures on a petition asking President Bush to issue an executive order to allow chaplains to pray in public according to their religious beliefs. Sekulow said that currently chaplains feel "muzzled" because of developments including pending litigation and new Air Force guidelines. The Department of Defense tells chaplains to be cognizant of the pluralistic military environment. 74 members of Congress have also written the President on the issue, saying, "Praying in the name of Jesus is a fundamental part of Christian belief and to suppress this form of expression would be a violation of religious freedom." (See related prior posting.)

Rob Boston, spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State said that Sekulow's petition drive is just "a fund-raising ploy". He said, "This is being portrayed as an attack on Christianity when, in fact, all we're really asking for is that the Air Force respect and accommodate all religious beliefs within its ranks and not extend preference to a group that happens to be the majority. " Sekulow, on the other hand, said, "I think it's one of the most significant issues of religious freedom in our country. You've got chaplains afraid to say 'in Jesus' name.' ... They're fighting for freedom abroad and this is a basic fundamental freedom here."