« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »
Thanks to Brian McLaren for highlighting an eloquent and needed response by Christians to a recent Muslim statement called A Common Word Between Us and You. Here's some of McLaren's commentary on these documents:
Continue reading ""A Christian Response to 'A Common Word Between Us and You'"" »
Julie Moldover has written an informative and useful piece on some of the conflicts that arise when New York employers seek to comply with two legal obligations -- the duty to accommodate religious practices and the duty to refrain from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. (Thanks to Howard Friedman for bringing this article to my attention.) Here's how Moldover's piece begins:
Perhaps unwittingly, in 2002 the New York State Legislature created a dilemma for employers by enacting two potentially conflicting amendments to the Human Rights Law. One amendment raises sexual orientation to the status of a protected category along with, inter alia, religion. The other affirmatively requires employers to attempt reasonable accommodation of an employee's religious practices and beliefs, and makes it harder for an employer to successfully maintain an undue hardship defense. Consequently, an employee who regards workplace expression of his or her sincerely held religious beliefs against homosexuality as a sacred duty presents his or her employer with complex legal issues. On the one hand, employers may not discriminate or allow harassment based on sexual orientation. On the other, employers must accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs absent undue hardship.
Continue reading "Religious Accommodation v. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation" »
So here's my Halloween question: Is anyone else disturbed by the fake severed limbs (some of which were displayed on a backyard grill) that are cheerfully and widely sold at party stores this time of year, or am I alone on this one?
The Seventh Circuit's decision regarding taxpayer standing in the Indiana legislative prayer case (Hinrichs v. Bosma) represents one of the first of what I am confident will be many battles over the meaning of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Its reading of Hein makes it an especially important ruling, so there is much to say about it. For now, let me just say what troubles me most about the majority's opinion in Hinrichs. With the Hein decision, the Supreme Court insulated a good deal of executive branch action from taxpayer challenge, and thus, for practical purposes, any challenge at all. With its decision in Hinrichs v. Bosma, the Seventh Circuit appears to insulate a good deal of action by the legislative branch from taxpayer challenge, and thus, for practical purposes, any challenge at all.
Part of what is missing in the Hinrichs majority opinion is a sense of appreciation of the consequences of the reasoning expressed in its opinion. On this point, I agree with Justice Breyer, who has written: "The judge must examine the consequences [of a potential decision] through the lens of the relevant constitutional value or purpose." Drawing the circle of taxpayer standing so tightly will undermine many of the purposes of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the use of direct government funds to promote religion and governmental endorsements of one faith over others, among other things.
Why does the Establishment Clause do so? Certainly not to punish faith or undermine Christianity. Rather, it does so to ensure that the government sends the message that it equally values citizens of all faiths and none. And it does so to ensure that government does not force taxpayers to subsidize religion in general or particular religions. Further, by recognizing that the government basically has no jurisdiction in religious matters, whether to promote or interfere with faith, the government not only safeguards the rights of conscience, it also ensures religion's independence from the government. If religion is to have integrity, it must have independence from the government. When we allow taxpayers and others to challenge the government to keep faith with the Establishment Clause, we further these aims. When we will not even allow such challenges through the court house door, we jeopardize these values and the kind of religiously heterogeneous yet largely harmonious society that we have been.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to sue regarding prayers offered in the Indiana House of Representatives, prayers that the taxpayers argued promoted Christianity over other faiths and thus violated the Establishment Clause. The decision is here. (Earlier posts on this case are here and here.)
After the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, the Seventh Circuit invited supplemental briefing on the issue of taxpayer standing in this case. The Seventh Circuit has now ruled that taxpayers lacked standing to sue and thus dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Wood dissented. Wood said that she and the majority agreed on one point: "the principles announced in [the Hein case] with respect to federal taxpayers apply with equal force to the state taxpayers before us in the present case." But Wood noted that the court majority "overlook[ed] crucial points of the rationale expressed in the plurality opinion [in Hein], as well as the fact that seven Justices out of nine still consider Flast v. Cohen . . . to be good law." Here's how Judge Wood's dissent concludes:
In my view, the taxpayer-plaintiffs before us have alleged enough to win the right to present their challenge to the House Prayer before a judicial forum. They are challenging a legislative act, and they have alleged concrete pocketbook injuries. Given both the ruling in Marsh [v. Chambers] and the qualifications on that ruling, the issue they wish to present is a serious one. They argue, in essence, that preferential access to the Speaker's stand for adherents to the Christian faith is exactly the kind of problem that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was supposed to remedy. Were this a simple Establishment Clause case in which they complained about hearing the prayers as they walked past the door of the House Chamber on their usual way to work, they may very well have been entitled to proceed. The majority overextends the command of [Hein] in denying them a day in court. I respectfully dissent.
There's some coverage of the ruling here. Other coverage gets some reaction from those who were involved in the case about what might come next:
"Pope Benedict XVI urged Catholic pharmacists on Monday to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing drugs with 'immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia.' " The story (via DMN Religion Blog) also contains a summary of state law on this subject:
The issue has been debated extensively in the United States.
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich introduced the rule more than two years ago requiring pharmacists to fill all prescriptions. Pharmacists challenged the rule, and a legal settlement earlier this month allowed pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency birth control to step aside while someone else fills the prescription.
In Washington state, pharmacists have filed a federal lawsuit over a regulation requiring them to sell emergency contraception, saying it violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between "their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."
A few states in the U.S. have passed laws that specifically allow pharmacists or pharmacies to refuse to provide health care due to religious or moral objections, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights think tank based in New York.
Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota have legislation that explicitly permits pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, according to the Institute, and Florida, Illinois, Maine and Tennessee have broadly worded legislation that may apply to pharmacists.
In California, on the other hand, pharmacists are required to fill all valid prescriptions and can only refuse with employer approval and if the customer can still access the prescription in a timely manner.
The National Council for State Legislatures has issued a report that features links to these state laws and pending state legislation (as of March 2007).
The Christian Science Monitor (CSM) begins a series on military chaplains. Here's a description of the series:
They carry no guns, yet US military chaplains are considered a force multiplier in the war theater. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military expects chaplains to meet the spiritual needs of troops. But it also recognizes their importance in everything from counseling the young soldier crying in his bunk over a Dear John letter to being a leveling moral presence among troops trained to fight and kill. Reporter Lee Lawrence spent three months with dozens of military chaplains in Iraq and Afghanistan. She profiles six of them in a weekly series.
Part one in the series is here. The series also includes a historian's view of the military chaplaincy, a piece that looks at the number and type of military chaplains who currently serve, a Q and A with a scholar of clergy in the military, and information about an independent documentary on military chaplains. Finally, the CSM has posted some video clips that were gathered during their reporting for this series.
Big Daddy Weave reports that Joy Fenner was just elected president of the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT). (An earlier post on this issue is here.) Fenner will be the first woman to serve in that position. BDW says Fenner received 900 votes (51.9%) whereas David Lowrie received 840 votes (48.5%). Congratulations to Mrs. Fenner and Texas Baptists.
UPDATE: I'll add a few links to stories and press releases as they emerge. The press release from the BGCT is here; The Baptist Standard story is here; a post from the DMN Religion Blog is here.
ANOTHER UPDATE (10/30): More coverage from The Waco Tribune, Associated Press (including a gracious response from Lowrie: "I'm going to support [Fenner] to the best of my ability," he said), and the Star-Telegram. The Star-Telegram piece includes some wonderful commentary on this milestone by my friend, Brett Younger, pastor of Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas.
[Younger] said Fenner's election is "a delightful case of better late than never." . . .
The Texas body has recently had its first Hispanic and first black presidents. Currently there are 12 female pastors or co-pastors among the convention's congregations.
The convention has become increasingly distant from Southern Baptist leaders, some of whom have issued declarations that women should not be pastors and that wives should "graciously submit" to their husbands.
While Baptists in the 1600s welcomed women as pastors and deacons, "that's hasn't been the norm since," Younger said Monday. "There are still some churches where no woman is allowed behind the pulpit unless she is vacuuming."
But women in leadership roles in Baptist churches are on the increase, and "we're all for it," Younger said.
The Baptist Standard reports on other convention events, including Rick Warren's talk, the final report of Executive Director Charles Wade, a report on missions and ministry, and the election of first vice president, Mike Massar.
That's the title of a lengthy piece by David Kirkpatrick that runs in tomorrow's New York Times magazine. It covers a good deal of territory, including changes in evangelical life that are affecting views on policy, politics, and the proper role of Christianity in society and in the world. Here's a snippet:
The backlash on the right against [President] Bush and the war has emboldened some previously circumspect evangelical leaders to criticize the leadership of the Christian conservative political movement. “The quickness to arms, the quickness to invade, I think that caused a kind of desertion of what has been known as the Christian right,” [Bill] Hybels, whose Willow Creek Association now includes 12,000 churches, told me over the summer. “People who might be called progressive evangelicals or centrist evangelicals are one stirring away from a real awakening.”
I don't have time to comment on this piece at the moment, but I've pasted in a few of my favorite passages from it below the fold. If you have the time, the whole piece is well worth reading.
Peter Steinfels describes the current draft of the 2008 statement by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on the political responsibilities of Catholics and the process that lies ahead for further consideration of that statement. Here's how the piece begins:
On the eve of every presidential election year since 1976, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops have issued a set of reflections on Catholics’ political responsibilities. The task has probably never been so challenging as it will be in two weeks, when approximately 300 bishops from around the country meet in Baltimore.
Steinfels says the process has changed somewhat in recent years. For example, recently "it was decided that the entire body of bishops should debate and vote on the statement in open session, rather than have it discussed and decided in closed meetings by the 50-plus members of the Administrative Board." This year "no fewer than seven committees of bishops have now developed the proposed statement for 2008 and sent their 13,000-word draft to the whole hierarchy for reactions and amendments." Here's Steinfels' description of the draft:
It seems to me that The Washington Post gets a number of things right in its editorial on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom's (USCIRF) recent recommendation that the Islamic Saudi Academy (ISA) in Virginia be closed. Here's how the editorial begins:
Here's an idea for those members of a federal panel worried about what's being taught at a Saudi-supported school in Fairfax County. Give the academy a call and ask to take a look at the disputed works. That's what a Fairfax supervisor did, and school officials, without hesitation, opened their doors and the books. Maybe the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is right to have qualms about the school, but its half-hearted efforts to review the disputed works and its irresponsible suggestion that the school be shut don't inspire confidence.
This Fairfax supervisor's visit with the school is described in more detail a bit later in the editorial:
"Waterboarding is a form of torture no matter how it is done and should be a prohibited among U.S. military interrogation practices, Republican presidential candidate John McCain said today, taking issue with GOP rival Rudy Giuliani’s recent remarks." Here's what Guiliani said on this issue:
“It depends on how it is done; it depends on the circumstances; it depends on who does it,” Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, said. “I think the way it has been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. ... I would say if that is the description of it, then I can agree that it shouldn’t be done,” he said, adding that he doesn’t necessarily trust the media’s description and has yet to learn “what the real description of it is.”
And here's the response McCain offered at his town hall meeting yesterday at Dordt College, a school that is affiliated with the Christian Reformed Church:
“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak,” said McCain after a campaign stop at Dordt College here.
“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”
Good for McCain.
Catholic News Service reports:
Women religious from around the world have formed a global network aimed at combating human trafficking.
More than 30 nuns from 26 nations launched the initiative called the "International Network of Religious Against Trafficking in Persons" during a conference on human trafficking Oct. 15-19 in Rome.
The conference and training seminar were funded by the U.S. Department of State. The events were organized by the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican and the Italian Union of Major Superiors, which, together with the International Organization for Migration, designed the training program that helps foreign women flee forced prostitution.
There's more information about State Department-funded efforts in this area here. I have not yet found a description of this particular grant, however.
Donald Tobin has written an essay on the IRS-All Saints Church controversy. (Thanks to TaxProf Blog for the link.) The bulk of the essay focuses on the interaction between the IRS and the Justice Department on this case, interaction that All Saints says may indicate partisan meddling. Tobin has another take, and that portion of his essay appears below the fold.
Continue reading "DoJ Involvement in the All Saints Case: Fair or Foul?" »
"Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, attempting to woo support at one of the largest gatherings of religious and social conservatives, said that if elected president he would use the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to support private organizations that offer alternatives to abortions." Here's more on that score from a Roundtable story about some of the presidential-hopefuls' speeches at the Family Research Council's Washington Briefing:
Giuliani was the only candidate to talk about the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, created in 2001 by President George W. Bush to promote greater partnerships between government and religious organizations.
Giuliani said he would work with Congress through the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to support groups that promote abortion alternatives. He cited Best Friends, an abstinence education program in Washington, D.C. created in 1987 by Elaine Bennett, the wife of former Education Secretary and "drug czar" William Bennett.
The Bush administration and Congress have for years supported sexual abstinence education funding both domestically and internationally as a means to reduce unwanted pregnancy and fight HIV/AIDS. The Compassion Capital Fund, a Bush initiative funded by Congress to support faith-based and community organizations, also funds programs that encourage alternatives to abortions.
Giuliani also said as mayor he worked with faith-based organizations to turn welfare offices into job centers and institute the largest welfare-to-work initiative in the country, moving more than 640,000 New Yorkers off the welfare rolls.
For the Roundtable's assessment of that New York initiative, click here.
Outreach magazine has posted its lists of the 100 largest churches and the 100 fastest-growing churches in the United States. There's an excerpt below the fold from an accompanying article by Dr. Ed Stetzer, director of research and missiologist in residence for LifeWay Research, an arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. Stetzer partnered with Outreach magazine in developing this research. The excerpt from the article focuses on some of the political activities of these megachurches.
Continue reading "Lists of Largest and Fastest-Growing U.S. Churches" »
Phillip Carter and Dahlia Lithwick on Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey, waterboarding, and other forms of torture:
One of the most amazing manifestations of Michael Mukasey's odd shape-shifting between the two days of his confirmation hearings for the post of attorney general was the change in his position on torture. On Wednesday of last week, he repudiated the so-called torture memo signed by Jay Bybee in the strongest terms, comparing the "barbarism" of torture to what happened at Nazi concentration camps. By Thursday, he'd changed his tune, if not his entire submolecular structure, refusing to state unequivocally that waterboarding constitutes torture. You could almost hear him channeling Alberto Gonzales as he fudged, "If waterboarding is torture, torture is not constitutional." (Watch it here.)
Kate Sheppard provides an important clarification regarding the issues-list part of the Family Research Council's straw poll:
Another element of the straw poll results came up at the press conference [with the Family Research Council]. When they said that the top four issues for "values voters" were life, marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families, what they actually meant was that those were the top four among the narrow range voters were allowed to pick from. Each voter got to pick one issue from a list of 12 selected by the FRC that they considered their biggest priority. Other issues they listed were things like stem cell research, public display of the 10 commandments, and school prayer. Conspicuously not included: the Iraq War, national security, poverty, or environmental stewardship or "creation care" as evangelicals have termed it. These are some of the issues that the recent CBS poll found to be top concerns for a number of evangelicals and social conservatives in general.
According to an FRC representative: "We put the issues that we as an organization have worked on."
This is important information, isn't it? And yet I haven't seen it reflected in the reporting of these results, except for this post at TAPPED. Several other points need to be made about this issues poll.
Assuming the issues were limited in this way, it seems appropriate to ask -- why? Why not give people a chance to indicate that they care about issues beyond the ones already on the FRC agenda? More importantly, how can a Christian organization justify the omission of issues like poverty and peace from a wide-ranging issues list? I cannot think of any good excuse.
It also should be noted that, if the poll listed issues such as "public display of the 10 commandments" and "school prayer," and people voted for those issues, that would not tell us a thing, by itself, about whether the voters want the government to be involved in these sacred acts. (Yes, many Christians wish to display the 10 commandments in spaces that are publicly visible and to ensure that kids may pray at school, but a signficant number want to do so without government meddling in this area.) In the past the FRC has spoken in misleading ways about these issues, bleeding together non-governmental endorsements of religion, which are constitutionally protected, with governmental endorsements of religion, which are constitutionally prohibited. It will be important to watch the ways in which these results are used.
There is some good news in this area, however, although it does not emanate from the current activities of the Family Research Council.
Continue reading "A Poverty of Choices and the Potential for Change" »
Howard Friedman notes that the Urban Institute released a report last week entitled Evaluation of Florida's Faith- and Character-Based Institutions.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a talk at an Atlanta synagogue yesterday. Here's a snippet from the AP report:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Sunday that even if the court's Roe v. Wade decision is reversed, it has paved the way for permanent women's access to abortion.
She compared abortion statutes to divorce requirements that differ by state, saying that women able to afford train or plane tickets could still access abortion in states that legalize the practice.
"I do not believe the court's overruling Roe v. Wade - which I don't think will happen - will prevent women of means from accessing an abortion," Ginsburg told a crowd of about 500 at Atlanta's Ahavath Achim synagogue. "It will have a devastating impact on poor women."
Divisive issues such as abortion underscore the need for a strong and vigorous minority, especially with the recent rightward tilt of the 9-member court, said Ginsburg, the court's only female justice.
She said some dissents are aimed at swaying the opinions of her fellow judges while others are "an appeal to the intelligence of another day" in the hopes that it will provide guidance to future courts.
"Hope springs eternal and when I am writing a dissent, I'm always hoping for that fifth or sixth vote - even though I'm disappointed more often than not," she said.
After giving only six oral dissents over 13 years on the court, Ginsburg issued two last term. This shift led court observers to contend that Ginsburg last term found her voice and used it, which she said was news to those who knew her.
"That appraisal surprised my husband," she said to laughter.
Interestingly, Ginburg also "said Chief Justice John Roberts' hopes to build more consensus among the court seemed 'off the mark' in the last term, in which one-third of the cases were decided by a single vote." A little jab at Roberts, perhaps? In any case, she noted that she will not hesitate to dissent if she believes it is warranted. "I will continue to dissent if in my judgment the court veers in the wrong direction when important issues are at stake," Ginsburg said. Besides sharing a friendship, she and Justice Scalia have that in common.
Continue reading "Ginsburg on Abortion, Equality, and the Roberts Court " »
If you are interested in getting updates on the Family Research Council's "Washington Briefing," Dan at Faith in Public Life is live-blogging the event.
UPDATE: Marc Ambinder also is blogging the event. TNR's The Stump has links to the full texts of several of the speeches given by presidential contenders earlier today.
The Washington Post has a story on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom report that was released yesterday. The story focuses on the panel's recommendation regarding the Islamic Saudi Academy in Northern Virginia. Here's a snippet:
The commission does not specifically criticize the school's teaching materials; it said Saudi officials would not make them available. But it said it is concerned about the textbooks used in the school because those used by schools in Saudi Arabia promote violence against Christians, Jews, Shias and polytheists.
The panel's recommendations prompted a sharp response from school administrators and a Saudi government representative yesterday. They angrily denied that they are teaching radical Islam and said that the commission never asked to speak with any school staff members and never asked to see any materials.
"I think they went to Saudi Arabia and saw some curriculum there and thought we are teaching the same curriculum," said Acting Director-General Abdulrahman Alghofaili, who also is principal of the boys' high school. "And the fact is that we are teaching another curriculum. We are teaching an American curriculum." . . .
As evidence of the type of material it believes is being taught at the school, it cited a 2006 analysis of Saudi textbooks by the Center for Religious Freedom and Institute for Gulf Affairs. One ninth-grade textbook taught teenagers that violence toward Jews, Christians and others is sanctioned by God. A 12th-grade textbook, the 2006 report says, reads "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."
Panel members said they attempted to get access to the school's textbooks and curriculum through the Saudi government but were unsuccessful.
"We've made every effort to get this information," commission member Felice D. Gaer said.
As evidence of the type of material it believes is being taught at the school, it cited a 2006 analysis of Saudi textbooks by the Center for Religious Freedom and Institute for Gulf Affairs. One ninth-grade textbook taught teenagers that violence toward Jews, Christians and others is sanctioned by God. A 12th-grade textbook, the 2006 report says, reads "the hour [of judgment] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them."
But Alghofaili said that school officials revised their curriculum last summer, eliminating material considered controversial in the United States.
Administrators took textbooks sent from Saudi Arabia, ripped out pages deemed inappropriate and in some cases added material, said Alghofaili and David Kovalik, the education director who was involved in the curriculum changes.
One member of Congress reacted to the report quickly.
Continue reading "More on USCIRF's Recommended Closure of Virginia Islamic School" »
Laurie Goodstein reports that "a broad alliance of religious leaders, some of them also conservative Christians, is trying to persuade the candidates that the faith and values agenda is larger than [the issues of abortion and homosexuality]." Here's more from the post:
They are inviting Republican and Democratic candidates to speak at back-to-back “Compassion Forums” on Nov. 26 in Greenville, South Carolina, an early primary state.
They want to ask the candidates where they stand on climate change, torture, poverty in the United States and abroad, and genocide in Darfur – as well as abortion.
Backing the event is an unusual left/right alliance of evangelical, Catholic, Jewish and Muslim religious leaders who only recently would have made very strange bedfellows indeed: including Dr. Frank Page, President of the Southern Baptist Convention; Dr. Paul R. Corts, President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities; Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of the liberal group Sojourners and author of “God’s Politics;” Dr. Syeed Sayeed, general secretary of Islamic Society of North America; Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; and Bishop Vashti McKenzie, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
The organizers, a relatively new Washington group called Faith in Public Life, say they have interest from top candidates, although none have confirmed yet. They say they are negotiating with a network to broadcast it, that John Meacham, managing editor of Newsweek, will moderate, and that churches and Christian colleges will organize viewing parties.
There's more about Faith in Public Life here.
Hotline on Call quotes Ann Romney on her conversion to Mormonism:
"I'm still adjusting because I don't like going to church for three hours every Sunday. That's rough!"
Here's an advance report on the contents of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report on Saudia Arabia that is scheduled to be released later today:
A private Islamic school supported by the Saudi government should be shut down until the U.S. government can ensure the school is not fostering radical Islam, a federal panel recommends.
In a report released Thursday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom broadly criticized what it calls a lack of religious freedom in Saudi society and promotion of religious extremism at Saudi schools.
Particular criticism is leveled at the Islamic Saudi Academy, a private school serving nearly 1,000 students in grades K-12 at two campuses in northern Virginia's Fairfax County.
The commission's report says the academy hews closely to the curriculum used at Saudi schools, which they criticize for promoting hatred of and intolerance against Jews, Christians and Shiite Muslims. . . .
The commission, a creation of Congress, has no power to implement policy on its own. Instead, it makes recommendations to other agencies.
The commission does not offer specific criticism of the academy's teachings beyond its concerns that it too closely mimics a typical Saudi education.
The report recommends that the State Department prevail on the Saudi government to shut the school down until the school's textbooks can be reviewed and procedures are put in place to ensure the school's independence form the Saudi Embassy.
The story also carries a reaction from the Islamic school's director-general, Abdalla I. Al-Shabnan.
Continue reading "AP: USCIRF Says Saudi Government Should Shut Down Virginia Islamic School" »
Newsday reports:
Beginning Oct. 27, airport screeners will no longer "pat down" people wearing religious head coverings - if the traveler agrees to undergo alternative security measures. Officials said such alternatives might include walking through a machine that detects explosive chemicals. Or wearers could agree to pat down their own turban, and then have their hands swabbed with a cloth that is tested for chemical traces.
"It's a creative solution that meets national security interests without requiring a turban to be touched in an unwelcome way," said Amardeep Singh, executive director of the New York-based Sikh Coalition, a national advocacy group.
The compromise between advocacy groups representing Sikhs and Muslims and the Transportation Security Administration, which oversees the nation's 43,000 airport screeners, was described by all parties yesterday as mutually satisfactory.
The Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund has more on this development.
"In a decision watched closely by religious rights groups and municipal officials, a federal court has ruled in favor of an Orthodox Jewish religious school that fought for five years with the village of Mamaroneck, N.Y., over its right to construct a new school building." Here's more from the story:
The case was seen as an important test of a 2000 federal law known as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which extends broad protections to religious groups that claim their exercise of faith is “substantially burdened” by government land-use regulations. The law also extends similar protections to prison inmates.
In its ruling yesterday, the three-judge federal panel said the Zoning Board of Appeals of the affluent Westchester County village exhibited “an arbitrary blindness to the facts” in 2002 when it denied an application by the Orthodox school, the Westchester Day School, to build a new, 20-room school building.
Religious groups have embraced the Religious Land Use law as a bulwark against what they see as the meddling of government bureaucracies, while opponents see it as giving too much power to religious groups in deciding how the local landscape evolves.
While various court decisions since 2001 have come down on different sides of that balance of power, yesterday’s decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was viewed as a clear victory for the religious side.
Howard Friedman notes that "[t]he Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of RLUIPA. It held that RLUIPA's limitations on land use regulation are a valid exercise of Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause in cases where a burden placed on religious exercise affects interstate commerce." The court also found that RLUIPA does not violate the Establishment Clause. Friedman has more background on the case and a link to the decision (this link is only accessible to Lexis-Nexis subscribers).
UPDATE: Howard Bashman has posted the opinion in this case.
USA Today spotlights a common way to "church-shop" these days -- visiting congregational websites before visiting actual congregations.
According to this story, a report released October 15 by the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government concludes that "[w]hile faith-based and secular nonprofits have contributed unprecedented efforts to the long-term recovery along the Gulf Coast over the last two years, their continuing work is ultimately no match for the breadth of devastation wrought by hurricanes Katrina and Rita." The story says the researchers found that, "[f]or recovery to progress in a timely way, only government is large enough to take on the massive work still needed." There's an excerpt from the story below the fold that demonstrates some of the tension that exists between this perspective and the one recently expressed by the White House on this matter.
Continue reading "What is the Role of Government Regarding Katrina Devastation?" »
That's a quote from Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien of Baltimore about how a military chaplain should regard his ministry. O'Brien headed the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services for 10 years. His statement is part of a Catholic News Service report on a recent talk he gave at a Vatican-sponsored course for military ordinaries and chaplains. Here's a snippet from the report:
Military chaplains must be voices of conscience and defenders of the human rights of their own soldiers, enemy combatants and civilians, said Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien . . .
Where there is an acceptance of the direct killing of noncombatants or where torture is justified to obtain information, the chaplain service is either absent or not doing its job, the archbishop [said.]
"The vicious and utterly barbaric treatment of individuals" in the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq "leaves no doubt as to the barbaric extremes to which human beings can resort, especially in times of war," the archbishop told course participants Oct. 13.
"It is significant, perhaps, that this prison did not have an assigned chaplain, though Army regulations required one," he said.. . .
Chaplains are expected to intervene to stop torture, he said, as well as to help the military command determine what methods of questioning are appropriate and what methods cross the line into torture.
"Regardless of rank or power or position, the chaplain must see himself primarily as a man of God and not as an agent of the state," said the archbishop. "To put it another way: He must wear his uniform and rank on his body and not on his soul."
Archbishop O'Brien said that if, outside the confines of sacramental confession, a chaplain discovers evidence that international humanitarian laws are being violated, he has an obligation to report the incident "to the appropriate authority with as much discretion as possible."
This is the first I have heard of this kind of message being delivered to military chaplains, and it is certainly a welcome one.
The Archibishop also had some valuable words to say about respect for religious freedom and the role of military communities in securing that freedom.
Continue reading ""He must wear his uniform and rank on his body and not on his soul."" »
"As political gridlock in Washington muddies the long-term funding outlook for the State Children's Health Insurance Program [SCHIP], some states are preparing contingency measures such as enrollment caps or cutting children from the rolls." Here's more from the Washington Post story:
In the biggest domestic policy clash of President Bush's tenure, the House on Thursday will attempt against long odds to override Bush's veto of a bipartisan $35 billion expansion that would boost the popular program's enrollment from 6.6 million to 10 million over the next five years.
Should the override fail, the players will have to go back to the drawing board in search of a lasting compromise while the decade-old program, originally set to expire Sept. 30, continues operating until mid-November under a temporary measure that extends the previous year's funding levels.
But many state program leaders say the short-term fix will not be enough to maintain existing enrollment if gridlock continues. . . .
At current funding levels, 21 states would run out of money before the end of the fiscal year next September, according to the Congressional Research Service.
In California, which would run out in June, state SCHIP director Lesley Cummings on Friday recommended adopting emergency regulations that would allow state officials to establish a waiting list and a process for cutting off some of the 830,000 children on the state's $1.3 billion-a-year program.
"It's really critical that people understand that the amount of money this program has had in the past just is not sufficient for the program we've built and the caseload we now have," she said.
In Louisiana, as many as 37,000 of the 111,000 children on SCHIP might have to be cut to keep the program afloat, said J. Ruth Kennedy, the state's SCHIP director. In Georgia, which already has an enrollment cap of 295,000, officials are considering tightening eligibility requirements, reducing enrollment and limiting dental benefits, said Rhonda Medows, commissioner of Georgia's Department of Community Health.
"We're sitting on pins and needles," Medows said. "We can't plan past a six-week period because we don't know what's going to happen. These are children actively receiving care, and care will be interrupted."
It seems to me that the key words in that excerpt are "[s]hould the override fail." If you would like to urge your representative to vote to override the veto, here's a place to take action.
A report in today's Tulsa World says that "[t]he IRS notified Oral Roberts University a year ago of deficiencies in the way the nonprofit university had handled political programs, an ORU spokesman confirmed. " There's a long excerpt from the story below the fold.
Continue reading "Oral Roberts University Had Been Warned by IRS" »
One of the daybooks says that the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) will hold a news conference at 10am on October 18 to release a report on a USCIRF mission to Saudi Arabia.
"President Bush and the Dalai Lama will meet today with a ceremony planned for tomorrow to award the spiritual leader the Congressional Gold Medal. " Here's a snippet from the story:
The Dalai Lama is the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet's Buddhists. While the Dalai Lama is lauded in much of the world as a figure of moral authority, Beijing reviles the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize laureate and claims he seeks to destroy China's sovereignty by pushing for independence for Tibet, where the Dalai Lama is considered a god-king.
The Dalai Lama's special envoy, Lodi Gyari, said images of the U.S. president standing beside the Dalai Lama at the congressional ceremony will send a clear message that "people do care about Tibet. We have not been forgotten."
"I have no doubt this will give tremendous encouragement and hope to the Tibetan people," he told reporters ahead of the visit. It also "sends a powerful message to China that the Dalai Lama is not going to go away."
This website says it will offer a webcast of tomorrow's events associated with the award of the Congressional Gold Medal.
UPDATE: Michelle Boorstein has this interesting story about Lodi Gyaltsen Gyari, the Dalai Lama's special envoy. It notes that, "For Gyari, the medal ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda is the fruit of nearly two decades of lobbying Congress, the White House and the World Bank for more autonomy for Tibet." Boorstein also reports that "Chinese diplomats, Hill staffers said, pressed hard against the Dalai Lama getting the medal, and were particularly upset when Bush announced last week that he would personally present it to him." By doing so, "Bush will become the first U.S. president to meet the Dalai Lama in public."
That's the title of a new book by Christopher Eisgruber. The publisher's description of the book is below the fold.
Continue reading ""The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process"" »
"Children's issues will top the agenda on Capitol Hill this week, as Democrats try to override President Bush's veto of a popular child-health bill. " The Christian Science Monitory story is here. The PICO National Network, among others, is trying to round up the votes necessary for the override.
The Christian Science Monitor story says that "[i]n addition to S-CHIP, Democrats aim to move a child-focused agenda, including new legislation on product safety, education, and global health."
Last week, the US Coalition for Child Survival released a poll showing that 81 percent of Americans support the proposed US Commitment to Global Child Survival Act, even when told it would cost $7 per American per year to pay for it. The bill aims to strengthen the US government's role in reducing child mortality in the developing world by investments in "proven, cost-effective interventions," such as care for newborns, access to clean drinking water, immunization, and vitamin supplements.
"We have several Republicans already on this bill, and we haven't even begun to go out and look for sponsors," says Rep. Betty McCollum (D) of Minnesota, who is cosponsoring the bill with Rep. Christopher Shays (R) of Connecticut. "People are also ... aware that one of the quickest ways to restore our credibility and to relate to people around the world is by helping their children celebrate their first, second, and third birthdays," Representative McCollum says.
The website for the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival is here, and more information about the US Commitment to Global Child Survival Act is here.
The Republican Jewish Coalition will hold a forum for the 2008 presidential candidates tomorrow. Sam Brownback, Rudy Guiliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson are scheduled to participate. The New York Sun previews the event.
Tomorrow the Yale Forum on Faith and Politics will host a conference entitled Voices and Votes II: Shaping a New Moral Agenda. The agenda for the conference is here. The sponsors say there will be a live webcast of the event.
"The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom [USCIRF] calls for immediate international action to condemn the Burmese government’s brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators including Buddhist monks, to hold the government accountable for its actions, and to provide protection to Burmese citizens seeking to exercise their religious freedom and related human rights. The Commission urges an immediate, independent investigation into the crackdown." The full statement, dated October 4, is here.
One of the daybooks says that the Evangelical Climate Initiative is scheduled to release a poll today "showing that evangelicals support efforts by the federal government to control the effects of climate change." The website for the initiative is here.
That's Wade Burleson, commenting on the women-only homemaking classes at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Here is the relevant excerpt from Stephanie Simon's story in today's Los Angeles Times:
[Ashely] Smith, 30, [a lecturer in the homemaking program,] confided that she sometimes resents her husband for advancing his career "while I'm changing diapers and getting poop all over me."
But then she quoted from Ephesians: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord." And from Genesis: God created Eve to be a "suitable helper" for Adam.
"If we love the Scripture, we must do it," said Smith, who gave up her dreams of a career when her husband said it was time to have children. "We must fit into this role. It's so much more important than our own personal happiness."More moderate Southern Baptists disagree, and counter with their own biblical references. When Jesus dined at the home of two sisters, he praised Mary, who spent the evening studying his teachings, above Martha, who did chores. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul writes that "there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ."
"We're confusing 1950s culture with the teaching of Scripture," said Wade Burleson, a Southern Baptist pastor in Oklahoma. "I nowhere see where the Lord Jesus places limitations on the role of women in our culture."
If women wish to work full-time in the home, we should welcome and honor that choice. But we should also welcome and honor other choices that women make. Above all, we should not force one of these choices on women in the name of Christianity.
I see Burleson's comments as part of a larger effort to peel away cultural mores from biblical teaching and separate religious agendas from agendas geared toward preserving personal power bases or the power of political parties. No matter how hard anyone tries to do this, we'll never fully achieve it. We are human after all, complete with our own assorted blind spots. But when we strive to do these things, I'm convinced that we are engaged in the right struggle.
Faith in Public Life has posted the video of yesterday's press conference announcing the release of the paper Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values between Evangelicals and Progressives. Jane Lampman's story on the project is here.
"Black ministers called on the federal government Tuesday to declare HIV/AIDS among blacks a public health emergency and proposed legislation to address the disease in their community." Here's more from the story:
Almost half of all new HIV diagnoses are among blacks. Black men were diagnosed with the disease at a rate eight times that of white men, while black women were diagnosed at a rate almost 23 times that of white women, according to 2005 figures, the most recent available, from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The church leaders also pledged to promote HIV/AIDS testing and awareness among their congregations.
"Just as African-American clergy fervently came together 50 years ago to fight for civil rights, we are banding together today to bring an end to HIV/AIDS and its potential to obliterate our community," said Bishop T.D. Jakes, leader of the Dallas megachurch, The Potter's House.
Jakes spoke at a two-day conference of black clergy organized by the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS. The event drew more than 150 members of the clergy, politicians and medical professionals.
Ministers pledged to work with the Congressional Black Caucus on proposed legislation titled the National HIV/AIDS Elimination Act that they hope to introduce in Congress as early as January.
The act asks the president to declare HIV/AIDS among blacks a public health emergency, a declaration that would trigger the use of certain funds and resources against the disease, said commission president Debra Fraser-Howze.
Here's a link to the website of the National Black Leadership Commission on AIDS.
Tony Cartledge has a nice post on the use of the violent video game "Halo" in some churches. Here's how Cartledge concludes his essay:
Protracted exposure to violence, whether it's in movies or on a computer screen or in person, can desensitize people toward the humanity of others. Our "enemies" become just that -- not real people who have feelings and families, but just another obstacle who's blocking our path.
However noble their motives and however righteous the "hero" of Halo appears to be, I see no passable justification for endorsing the idea that blowing people to bloody bits is acceptable, even in a video game.
Jesus never said "blast your enemies , disembowel those who persecute you, and behead those who despitefully use you."
I'm pretty sure he used a different verb.
A verb like "love."
It's that kind of behavior that deserves a halo.
Well said.
Tim Rutten reviews Gary Wills' new book, Head and Heart: American Christianities. Here's a snippet:
Wills' argument is that American history has been marked by an oscillation between Enlightenment and Evangelism -- between head and heart. He contends that the fruitful tension between these two poles contributed directly to the U.S. Constitution's single wholly original contribution to the political tradition: "disestablishment of the official creed and separation of church and state." It is precisely this innovative separation, Wills contends, that has allowed religion to flourish in America as it does nowhere else in the developed world.
Glad to hear that Wills is beating that drum again.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) gave a speech yesterday at Brigham Young University entitled "Faith, Family, and Public Service." Here's a snippet from The Salt Lake Tribune's coverage of the speech:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Brigham Young University students Tuesday that it is possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat.
"My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined. I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it," he told a gathering of more than 4,000 at the Marriott Center.
But Nevada's senior senator says he also hopes votes for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney are "determined by his political stands, and not his religion."
Reid said people often question how he can be a Democrat and a Mormon, but called the social responsibility Democrats espouse a good fit with the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Tribune also reported these remarks by Reid:
In remarks to the media following his address, Reid said that, "In the past years we've had some very prominent members of the church, like Ezra Taft Benson, who are really right-wing people.
"Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path," he said.
"Low-income students who attend urban public high schools generally do just as well as private-school students with similar backgrounds, according to a study being released Wednesday." Here's more from the story:
Students at independent private schools and most parochial schools scored the same on 12th-grade achievement tests in core academic subjects as those in traditional public high schools when income and other family characteristics were taken into account, according to the study by the nonpartisan Center on Education Policy.
While the finding is in line with a handful of recent studies, it's at odds with a larger body of research over the years that has found private-school students outperform those in public schools. Some of that research found a private-school advantage even when income levels are taken into account.
However, the new study not only compared students by income levels but also looked at a range of other family characteristics, such as whether a parent participates in school life.
"When these were taken into account, the private-school advantage went away," the report states.
The story also notes:
In trying to determine whether the type of high school attended by a student made a difference academically, the new study tried to separate out the effects of income; earlier eighth-grade test scores; parental expectations; whether parents discuss school with their children and whether parents participate in school activities.
When all these factors were accounted for, the only kind of private schools that had a positive impact on student achievement were Catholic schools run by holy orders such as the Jesuits. Such schools have more autonomy from the church than most Catholic schools, which are typically run by a diocese and are overseen by a superintendent in the local bishop's office.
The study's lead researcher, Harold Wenglinsky of Columbia University, said it would be useful to study the holy order schools to see what's behind their success.
The study is here.
E.J. Dionne highlights a report that will be released by Third Way tomorrow. The title of the report is Come Let Us Reason Together: A Fresh Look at Shared Cultural Values between Evangelicals and Progressives. The report was written by Rachel Laser and Robert Jones. Along with others, I had the opportunity to chip in my two cents on earlier drafts of this report, and I offered a statement of endorsement for the project. I'll post a link to the paper once it is released.
UPDATE: The paper is now posted here. An overview of the paper is here, and a list of brief statements about the project (including my own) is here.
In case you missed them, let me flag two important stories from this weekend's New York Times. The first is a piece about the use of the violent video game Halo in churches. The second story focuses on the lottery and aid for public schools. Here's a snippet from the second story:
[S]ince states began legalizing lotteries more than 40 years ago, [some elected officials] have sold gambling as a savior for cash-starved public schools and other government programs. Lotteries have raised billions of dollars, and of the 42 states that have them, 23 earmark all or some of the money for education.
For years, those states have heard complaints that not enough of their lottery revenue is used for education. Now, a New York Times examination of lottery documents, as well as interviews with lottery administrators and analysts, finds that lotteries accounted for less than 1 percent to 5 percent of the total revenue for K-12 education last year in the states that use this money for schools.
In reality, most of the money raised by lotteries is u