Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
9th Circuit Rejects Prisoner's Religious Diet Claim
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
U.S. House Resolution Criticizes Saudi Religious Education
The preamble go on to say that "rote memorization of religious texts continues to be a central feature of much of the educational system of Saudi Arabia, leaving thousands of students unprepared to function in the global economy of the 21st century." It continues: "some textbooks in Saudi Arabian schools foster intolerance, ignorance, and anti-Semitic, anti-American, and anti-Western views", and "these intolerant views instilled in students make them prime recruiting targets of terrorists and other extremist groups".
The vote on the Resolution was 351 Yes; 1 No; 2 voting Present. Here is the floor debate on the measure. The lone No vote was Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul.
6th Circuit: Surprising Ten Commandments Ruling
The court continued:Here, unlike McCreary County, Mercer County’s stated purpose was more than a mere "litigating position." Instead, it is supported by context, including the explanatory document and the eight other objectively historical and secular documents. A reasonable observer would not view this display as an attempt by Mercer County to establish religion. Instead, he would view it for what it is: an acknowledgment of history.
The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to "the separation of church and state." This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.... Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address.... Third, the ACLU erroneously–though perhaps intentionally–equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow.While the court found a secular purpose in the display, Carroll Rousey, a retired dry-wall contractor who paid for and put up the 2001 Mercer County display, was quoted in an article in today's Columbus, Georgia Ledger-Enquirer as saying, "I feel that this is what the Lord wanted me to do."
Christian Coalition's 2006 Agenda
Editorials Support Judge's Intelligent Design Decision
San Bernadino Student Group Challenges Nondiscrimination Policies
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
No Appeal Likely In Intelligent Design Case
Dover School District Loses Intelligent Design Case
The 139-page opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District is a strong endorsement of arguments by the plaintiffs that the school board's action violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The full opinion is available online here. [Thanks to Ed Brayton for posting it].
In finding that the Dover school board violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 3 of the Pennsylvania constitution , the court applied both the “endorsement” test and the Lemon test.
It held that an objective student would view the disclaimer read in class as a strong endorsement of religion; and that an objective adult member of the Dover community, aware of the social context in which the ID policy arose, would view school board policy and the conduct of board members as a strong endorsement of a religious view.
Applying Lemon, the court found that the language, legislative history and historical context in which ID policy arose "inevitably lead to the conclusion that Defendants consciously chose to change Dover’s biology curriculum to advance religion". The court made extensive findings that Intelligent Design "is not science". It found that ID violates the ground rules of science by invoking supernatural causation; it employs "the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science"; and ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community. The court then concluded that since ID is not science, its only real effect is the advancement of religion.
In concluding his opinion, Judge Jones wrote:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
House of Lords Permits Sex Discrimination Claim By Minister
RLUIPA Does Not Apply To Eminent Domain
Dover "Intelligent Design" Decision To Be Released Later Today
Monday, December 19, 2005
Op Eds On Church-State
Magistrate Defers To Prison Security Concerns In RLUIPA Case
French Government Issues Brochure For Hajj Pilgrims
Study Results Boost Faith-Based Prisons
Sunday, December 18, 2005
House of Representative Supports Christmas Symbols
Friday's Virginian-Pilot reported that the resolution was introduced by Rep. Jo Ann Davis, a conservative Christian member of Congress from Virginia. Speaking in favor of the proposal during House debate, Davis lamented, "Christmas has been declared politically incorrect." In response to concerns that her resolution amounted to government promotion of religion, Davis amended her original resolution to make clear that she wants to protect Christmas traditions simply "for those who celebrate Christmas."Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would prohibit the establishment of religion, not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;
(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and
(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions, for those who celebrate Christmas.
Democratic Rep. Robert C. Scott, also from Virginia, accused Davis of being more concerned about the symbols of Christmas than the substance. He argued: "Instead of legislation that respects the spirit of Christmas, Congress in just these past few weeks has passed a budget that includes mean-spirited attacks on the least of us. For those who are hungry, we are cutting food stamps. For those who are sick, we are cutting Medicaid."
Alabama Bill To Permit Teaching About Bible
Muslim Prisoner Denied Right To Wear Beard
Saturday, December 17, 2005
EU Says Spain Must End VAT Tax Exemption For Catholic Church
Americans United Opposes Alito Nomination
Judge Alito has on occasion been solicitous of free exercise rights — at least for non-prisoners. On the other hand, he has given broad license to religious majorities to use the public schools and other official settings to broadcast their religious messages without regard for the competing rights and interests of religious minorities.... Both the straightforward holdings and the underlying tenor of Judge Alito’s decisions in Establishment Clause cases contrast sharply with Justice O’Connor’s views. Throughout her career on the Court, Justice O’Connor has been keenly attuned to the plight of religious minorities in society as a whole, and most especially in the public schools. But Judge Alito’s focus has been elsewhere: on religious majorities’ ability to express their views through governmental instrumentalities, at government owned facilities, and in government-organized enterprises like the public schools.