Categories
Join Us At:
|
Could Your Taxes Fund Religious Buildings? Yes!It’s everyone’s favorite time of the year: tax season! But as millions of us file our taxes (and hope we don’t get audited), federal agencies are considering troubling new regulations that could spend your tax money to construct churches and other religious buildings. A long time ago, James Madison denounced government attempts to spend even “three pence” of our taxes for religious purposes. And Thomas Jefferson stood up against the “sinful and tyrannical” act of forcing taxpayers to fund any religion (even their own) against their will. A lot has changed since then, but not this longstanding First Amendment principle. The separation of church and state protects against advancing religion with taxpayer dollars. Recent administration action, however, attempts to wipe out constitutional protections against the use of public funds for religious purposes and would put in place even more lax policies than those in place under the George W. Bush administration. The ACLU has fought back against proposed regulations from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, USAID, and the Department of Commerce, that if approved would allow the government to pay for constructing religious buildings. The Constitution requires that buildings built on the taxpayers’ dime cannot be put to religious use — but these regulations would allow exactly that — even to build churches! Each of these proposed regulations would be an affront to the Constitution. The government cannot be in the business of promoting religion. Contrary to those who accuse this administration of a “war on religion,” the facts simply don’t add up. On top of this unsettling pattern of attempts to disregard the Constitution, President Obama boasted about an expansion of the faith-based initiative program last week at the National Prayer Breakfast. And in the last year alone, the administration has awarded Catholic Charities over three quarters of a billion dollars in grants. Like the Founding Fathers before him, the Obama administration should be working to protect First Amendment principles, not undermine them by using public money to fund religious institutions. Learn more about government-funded religion: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Catholic Church
Don't B-SHOCked: Settlement Shows Public Schools Can't Proselytize A federal judge signed and entered a consent decree and order today in the ACLU’s case challenging widespread and pervasive religious practices in South Carolina’s Chesterfield County School District. The ACLU brought the lawsuit on behalf of a local father, Jonathan Anderson, and his son, who is a student at New Heights Middle School. Both are non-believers. The school district’s unlawful practices promoting religion garnered national attention after a video was posted online documenting a school-day assembly that featured a Christian rapper who calls himself “B-SHOC” (pictured). The assembly also included a sermon delivered by an evangelical youth minister, and students were asked to sign cards pledging themselves to Jesus. Students who did not want to attend the assembly were told that they could instead spend the afternoon in in-school suspension. The B-SHOC concert was not the first or the last time that district officials sought to impose their religious beliefs on students. For several years, the Anderson family has endured official prayers and proselytizing at nearly every school event; religious iconography, including a copy of the Ten Commandments, adorned school walls; and teachers incorporated Biblical scripture into lessons. Mr. Anderson’s son was even ordered to copy religious essays as punishment for minor rules infractions, such as forgetting his belt and gym clothes. When Mr. Anderson objected to these activities, he was informed by the school principal that he needed to “get right with God.” Similarly, after his son told a teacher that the B-SHOC event would not be fun for him because he is an atheist, the teacher instructed, “I wouldn’t brag about that.” The consent decree and order will bring these unconstitutional practices to an end and restore the Establishment Clause rights of the Andersons and all families throughout Chesterfield County schools. For the first time in years, students will be able to attend school without being coerced into prayer or other religious activities. They will not be subjected to unwanted preaching, religious messages, and symbols. They will not be made to feel like outsiders or second class-citizens by school officials merely because they do not practice the same faith or hold the same beliefs as others. And parents will be able to reclaim the right to decide what religious education, if any, their children receive. At the same time, under the consent decree, students who wish to pray or express their faith are still free to exercise those rights consistent with the protections offered by the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In voting to approve the consent decree, the Chesterfield County School Board should be commended for recognizing that its previous policies and practices promoting religion are simply not defensible. Nor are these policies and practices sustainable as a practical matter in light of the increasing religious diversity enjoyed by South Carolina’s public schools. More importantly, the Anderson family should be commended for having the courage to stand up for the Constitution. It is never easy to serve as a plaintiff in an Establishment Clause case, especially when the litigation involves children: Those who dare to defend these rights are often subjected to public scorn and harassment of the worst kind. Indeed, the Anderson family has already been targeted online with many misguided and outright hateful comments and has even been harassed at home. At the same time, however, there are many who have supported the Andersons because they understand that enforcing the law in this area is not an attack on religion. Rather, by prohibiting school-sponsored prayer and other official religious activities, lawsuits of this nature advance fundamental principles of religious liberty — namely, protecting all religions from the potentially corruptive power of the government and ensuring the right of individuals and families to freely follow any faith (or none at all) without governmental coercion or influence. Learn more about religion and schools: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: B-SHOC, South Carolina
Score One for Women's Health! Obama Administration Stands Up For Birth Control Most people may be keeping track of the NFL playoffs at the moment, but the big win today went to women. For anyone who’s keeping score, it’s women’s health — 1, discrimination — 0, with the Obama administration and thousands of women’s health proponents who pressured the Administration to do the right thing tied for MVP. Today, the Obama administration announced that it would keep in place a proposed rule that ensures that new insurance plans include coverage of contraception, and provides an exception for houses of worship. The powerful U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ lobby, among others, had pressed for months to create gaping loopholes so that a broad range of employers could discriminate against women and deny them coverage for this essential preventive care. They tried to do so in the name of “religious liberty,” but what we know, is that as a nation, we protect religious beliefs, but one person’s religion must not be used to trump another’s civil rights protections. Because of the outcry from groups like the ACLU, however, the Obama administration stood up for women’s health and did not broaden the religious exception. The final rule will give certain religious employers that do not currently cover contraception an additional year to come into compliance. We also know that the majority of women of childbearing age, regardless of religious background, use some form of birth control for 30 years, at costs that range from $50 per month for oral contraception, to up to $1,000 for longer-acting methods. We use birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies, protect our health, and to plan our lives. That’s why the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine initially recommended to HHS that insurance companies be required to cover contraceptives in the first place, and why the administration adopted — and has now confirmed — that policy. With today’s decision, good sense won out over political gamesmanship. And true religious liberty — which gives everyone the right to make personal decisions, including whether and when to use birth control based on their own beliefs — prevailed over discrimination. Join us in thanking President Obama for standing firm on women's reproductive health. Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: birth control, Catholic Church
Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and Religious Freedom This week we commemorate and honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the values of freedom and equality that Dr. King fought so hard for. This week (Jan 16) we also celebrate Religious Freedom Day, which commemorates the passage of the Virginia Statue for Religious Liberty, 226 years ago. This statute laid the ground work for the protections for religious freedom found in the First Amendment. The First Amendment guarantees two interrelated aspects of religious freedom: the freedom to believe and to practice one’s religion and the freedom from government sponsorship of religion. Both are integral to ensuring religious liberty flourishes. Because the First Amendment’s religion clauses ensure we all have true freedom of conscience, we are not told what to believe or prohibited from practicing religion. As a result, people are free to preach in the public square, students are free to voluntarily pray in school, or a woman is free to wear a religious head scarf when accompanying her family to the county courthouse. It was this religious freedom that enabled black churches and houses of worship across the country to participate in the civil rights movement and bring about societal change. All of these represent what we are celebrating today. And all are strongly defended by the ACLU. However sometimes freedom of religion is misidentified as the freedom to impose one’s beliefs on others. Whether it is requiring students at a public school to attend a mandatory assembly where a Christian rapper is proselytizing to students or school officials leading prayer at school athletic events, we’ve seen a number of groups and individuals conflate religious freedom with violating the Constitution. This is not freedom of religion. True freedom of religion is the guarantee that all are free to follow and practice their faith — or no faith at all — without governmental influence or interference. Dr. King might have said it best, that the church “is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool." Freedom of religion also does not differentiate between religions, providing none with favor or disfavor. Sadly though, throughout our country’s history, almost every religious group has been the target of discrimination at one point or another. Most recently individuals of the Muslim faith have been targeted with attempted bans on building Mosques and community centers, hateful congressional hearings on the so called “radicalization” of the American Muslim community, profiling by the FBI simply because of their religious affiliation, and even a state constitutional amendment (correctly enjoined by the courts) that did nothing more than target Islam for official condemnation. As we reflect on the dual importance of this day let us remember that the values of freedom and equality that Martin Luther King Jr. fought so hard for include the freedom to practice one’s own religion free from government interference and the right to not be discriminated against for any reason, including religious belief. Dr. King said, “legally, constitutionally, or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right” to interfere in an individual’s exercise of religion. This statement held true 226 years ago, it held true when Martin Luther King Jr. said it, and it holds true today as we celebrate the work of Dr. King and Religious Freedom Day. Learn more about religious freedom: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Martin Luther King Jr.
Constitutional Law 101: Federal Court Rules That Discrimination Against Muslims Violates the First Amendment Condemning an entire faith and singling out its followers for disfavored and unequal treatment by the government violates the Constitution, it turns out. That principle might seem obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution, but the State of Oklahoma and its voters did not get the message, prompting a federal appeals court today to affirm a decision blocking the implementation of an anti-Islam constitutional amendment. The Constitution’s promise of religious liberty extends to followers of all faiths, including Muslims. Thus, a federal appeals court ruled today that an Oklahoma law that discriminates against Muslims appearing before state courts likely violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court upheld a district court ruling preventing the amendment from taking effect. The ACLU and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”) represent the plaintiff in the case, Muneer Awad (pictured), the executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter. Oklahoma’s proposed “Save Our State Amendment” would have changed the state constitution to bar state courts from considering so-called “Sharia Law” in making decisions. The amendment defined “Sharia Law” broadly as Islamic law based on the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed. If implemented, the amendment would have rendered Oklahoma’s Muslims second-class citizens before the state courts. For example, it could have prevented courts from probating a will that incorporated or even mentioned the religious beliefs of the deceased. It also could have inhibited Muslims from forming enforceable contracts in accordance with their religious beliefs, even while those of other faiths could. And it would have effectively denied Muslims the ability to bring suit in state court to remedy violations of their religious freedom rights. In its ruling, the appeals court flatly rejected the State’s claim that the law was necessary to protect against the courts’ improper application of Sharia law. The court affirmed that the so-called “Sharia threat” identified by the State is a myth. The court wrote: "Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted...that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma." In addition to blatantly discriminating against Muslims, the amendment also would have banned state courts from applying or considering “international law.” Not only would this have violated the Constitution, but it also would have undermined courts’ abilities to interpret laws and treaties relating global business issues and international human rights. And it could have blocked state courts from recognizing or ruling on issues relating to international marriages and adoptions. The Oklahoma law was an early entrant in the race by a number of state officials to ban Sharia law and international law in response to a loathsome wave of anti-Muslim sentiment that has swept the country in the last few years, including myriad attacks on Muslim houses of worship, discrimination against Muslim women, and the improper targeting of Muslims in the national security context. The ACLU continues to work tirelessly to protect the rights of Muslims in all of these areas. The court’s decision today represents a significant victory against anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry and sends the message that the religious liberty of Muslims, like Americans of all faiths, may not be put up for a vote. Learn more about religious freedom: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: anti-Muslim bias, Oklahoma, sharia
The New York Times Highlights ACLU's Religious Freedom Work in Public Schools Contrary to what you might see elsewhere on the Internet, the ACLU is not trying to eliminate religion from public schools. Students are free to pray in class, at lunch, before a football game or anywhere else. We also stand up for students who wish to express their faith by wearing rosaries, yarmulkes, uncut hair or anything else that outwardly signifies their devotion to a particular creed. What is not permitted, and never has been, is allowing public school teachers and other officials to use the positions entrusted to them by the State and parents to impose their religious beliefs on students by officially sanctioning religious activities in public schools. School officials may not subject students to official prayer or proselytizing. This is clearly forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Unfortunately, we've been receiving reports from concerned students and parents about schools around the country overstepping these boundaries by a wide margin, to the degree that some students feel like outsiders in their own school. One of the most recent, and egregious, examples is in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. The New York Times just published a piece on our work there. School officials in the Chesterfield County School District have hosted worship rallies during the school day featuring rappers who exhort students to give their lives to Christ. Preachers are invited to tell kids that they need a relationship to Jesus "more than anything else" to avoid drug addiction. Our client, an atheist student who complained about the rally and other aggressive activities to promote religion, was told he could skip the rally if he reported to the in-school suspension room.
Telling non-believing students that they can opt out or not pray along is not an option. Here at the ACLU, we believe that the right to pray as you wish or believe what you want is a vital part of the American fabric. This promise of religious freedom means that religious education is the province of parents, families, and churches — not the government and not public schools. Public schools should provide a welcoming atmosphere for students of all beliefs. No student should have to feel as though they're being punished for not praying or believing the way a teacher wants them to. Learn more about religion in schools: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: B-SHOC, Christian Chapman, public education, religion in schools, South Carolina
12 Days of Religious Liberty - Day 12
During what is often referred to as the holiday season, a variety of cultures and religions honor an equally diverse number of both religious and secular traditions. Christmas, Hanukkah, and Bodhi Day are just some of the religious holidays that are celebrated this time of year. And for many who don’t subscribe to a particular faith tradition, the season is still seen as an occasion to gather with friends and family.
No matter why you are celebrating this holiday season, we can all celebrate living in a country where religious freedom is a fundamental value. The First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses not only protect the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. In honor of our country’s proud history of promoting religious freedom, and the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith, this holiday season we are highlighting 12 cases we have brought on behalf of a variety of faiths defending religious liberty and the right to religious expression. Twelfth Day: Standing Up For Christmas In 2003, The ACLU of Rhode Island interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women's prison in Cranston, RI. Because of our efforts, the prison relented and the prisoners were treated to caroling. That same year, the ACLU of Massachusetts sued on behalf of a group of high school students who were disciplined by school officials for distributing candy canes with religious messages just before Christmas. The students, members of the school’s Bible Club, each received a one-day suspension for handing out the candy canes. The ACLU argued that the school’s actions interfered with the free speech rights of public high school students under both state law and the First Amendment, which proects their speech as long as it does not disrupt the educational process. Religious expression is a valued and protected part of the First Amendment rights guaranteed to all citizens. Christmas is pervasive in our society, both publicly and privately, and, except when the government is being used to promote and favor religious beliefs, it is entirely constitutional. Read more…
For more instances of the ACLU rigorously defending the rights of all religious believers to practice their faiths, please visit our website. Learn more about religious liberty: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
12 Days of Religious Liberty - Day 11
During what is often referred to as the holiday season, a variety of cultures and religions honor an equally diverse number of both religious and secular traditions. Christmas, Hanukkah, and Bodhi Day are just some of the religious holidays that are celebrated this time of year. And for many who don’t subscribe to a particular faith tradition, the season is still seen as an occasion to gather with friends and family.  No matter why you are celebrating this holiday season, we can all celebrate living in a country where religious freedom is a fundamental value. The First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses not only protect the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. In honor of our country’s proud history of promoting religious freedom, and the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith, this holiday season we are highlighting 12 cases we have brought on behalf of a variety of faiths defending religious liberty and the right to religious expression. Eleventh Day: ACLU Helps a Prisoner Receive Proper Religious Diet Officials at the Teller County Jail in Colorado determined that prisoners could not have “certain religious articles or diets.” That decision prompted one inmate, a practicing Seventh-Day Adventist to reach out to the ACLU of Colorado. The prisoner had repeatedly requested a diet in accordance with his religious beliefs, but was repeatedly denied. For months the inmate was unable to eat portions of the regular prison meals that would have violated his religious tenets, and as a result experienced health problems and lost significant weight. The ACLU wrote a letter of inquiry which resulted in a revision of the jail's policy to allow for religious accommodation. Read more…
For more instances of the ACLU rigorously defending the rights of all religious believers to practice their faiths, please visit our website. Learn more about religious liberty: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
12 Days of Religious Liberty - Day 10
During what is often referred to as the holiday season, a variety of cultures and religions honor an equally diverse number of both religious and secular traditions. Christmas, Hanukkah, and Bodhi Day are just some of the religious holidays that are celebrated this time of year. And for many who don’t subscribe to a particular faith tradition, the season is still seen as an occasion to gather with friends and family. No matter why you are celebrating this holiday season, we can all celebrate living in a country where religious freedom is a fundamental value. The First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses not only protect the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. In honor of our country’s proud history of promoting religious freedom, and the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith, this holiday season we are highlighting 12 cases we have brought on behalf of a variety of faiths defending religious liberty and the right to religious expression. Tenth Day: A Mosque in Maine The Maine Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the City of Portland on behalf of the Portland Masjid and Islamic Center, a group of Muslims seeking to build a mosque. The group had collectively purchased a small building, a former television repair shop, to use as a community center for prayer and education. Existing zoning laws classified the building as part of a residential and commercial zone. Religious activities were prohibited. In response to the MCLU’s legal and advocacy efforts, Portland amended its land-use ordinance, and the Portland Planning Board granted approval to the project. The mosque now primarily serves as a religious and cultural center for Muslim families who came to this country from Afghanistan fleeing religious persecution following invasion of their country by the Soviet Union. Read more…
For more instances of the ACLU rigorously defending the rights of all religious believers to practice their faiths, please visit our website. Learn more about religious liberty: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
12 Days of Religious Liberty - Day 9
During what is often referred to as the holiday season, a variety of cultures and religions honor an equally diverse number of both religious and secular traditions. Christmas, Hanukkah, and Bodhi Day are just some of the religious holidays that are celebrated this time of year. And for many who don’t subscribe to a particular faith tradition, the season is still seen as an occasion to gather with friends and family. No matter why you are celebrating this holiday season, we can all celebrate living in a country where religious freedom is a fundamental value. The First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses not only protect the right to believe (or not to believe), but also the right to express and to manifest religious beliefs. In honor of our country’s proud history of promoting religious freedom, and the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights of all religious believers to practice their faith, this holiday season we are highlighting 12 cases we have brought on behalf of a variety of faiths defending religious liberty and the right to religious expression. Ninth Day: ACLU Says Winter Solstice Display Must Be Allowed Alongside Other Religious Symbols at State Capitol The Arkansas Society of Freethinkers sought to erect a Winter Solstice holiday display on the grounds of the Arkansas state capitol, to be displayed near the Christian crèche which has been on display on state capitol grounds each holiday season for over half a century. The display depicts images of the Winter Solstice and the mythologies that arose from this celestial event, as well as suggested readings and quotes from famous philosophers, scientists, and other secular writers and thinkers.
For more instances of the ACLU rigorously defending the rights of all religious believers to practice their faiths, please visit our website. Learn more about religious liberty: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
