New York Times Editorial
complete at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon1.html?_r=1&hp
November 28, 2010
Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma
For a few days this month, it was illegal in Oklahoma for a state judge to base a court decision on Islamic religious law or consider any form of international law. It was a manufactured problem; the issue has never come up in the state’s courts. But more than 70 percent of voters in Oklahoma still approved a state constitutional amendment to that effect, apparently persuaded by anti-Islamic activists, and a few cynical politicians, that Oklahoma was about to be brought under Islam’s heel.
After Muslim groups challenged the constitutionality of the “Save Our State Amendment,” a federal district judge issued a temporary restraining order. Last Monday, the judge, Vicki Miles-LaGrange, held a hearing to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the measure, and said she would make a decision by the end of November. A federal injunction is warranted to save Oklahoma from its pernicious folly and to prevent other states from following the same path.
complete at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon1.html?_r=1&hp
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Judge Bars Certification of Okla. Anti-Islam Amendment
Injunction Temporarily Bars Certification of SQ 755
Plaintiff Likely to Prevail
CAIR: Judge Bars Certification of Okla. Anti-Islam Amendment
Strongly-worded ruling supports Muslim plaintiff's legal arguments
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/29/2010) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today applauded a strongly-worded ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma granting an injunction that bars certification of an anti-Islam state ballot measure (SQ 755) passed in the November 2 election.
SEE: Judge Rules in Favor of Muslim Man on State Question 755
http://newsok.com/article/3519080
If it had been certified, SQ 755 would have amended that state's constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic principles or international law when deciding a case.
Today's ruling by Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ordered a preliminary injunction to block the certification of the amendment by the Oklahoma State Board of Elections until a final determination is made based on the merits of a lawsuit against SQ 755 filed by Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter (CAIR-OK).
In her ruling in support of Awad's legal arguments, Judge Miles-LaGrange wrote:
SEE: Judge Miles-LaGrange's Ruling
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/oklahoma_ruling.pdf
"We applaud today's ruling and welcome the opportunity it offers to demonstrate that Oklahoma's Muslim community simply seeks to enjoy the civil and religious rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution," said Awad.
SEE: Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon1.html
Awad's lawsuit, based on his own faith-based will, says SQ 755 violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause that bars government bodies from making laws ìrespecting the establishment of religion.î†
SEE: Full Text of Awad's Lawsuit
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf
Oklahoma Surprise: Islam as an Election Issue (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/us/15oklahoma.html
"Today marks another day in American history in which our courts have defended the Constitution against those who would deny its protections to a minority community," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad (no relation to Muneer Awad). "We agree with Judge Miles-LaGrange and the U.S. Supreme Court that 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.'"
Awad added that he hopes the ongoing legal process will expose the campaign of misinformation about Islam targeting Oklahoma voters that was used to promote SQ 755.
CAIR Video: SQ 755 Sponsor Explains Purpose of Amendment on MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybvivrs_MH0
He said CAIR plans an education campaign in Oklahoma to offer state residents accurate and balanced information about Islamic beliefs and practices and about the American Muslim community.
CAIR Q&A on Oklahoma Anti-Islam Ballot Measure
http://tinyurl.com/2asddqp
Hate messages have been received by Muslim institutions in Oklahoma following the passage of SQ 755.
Video: Rachel Maddow Details Hate Messages Received by Okla. Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYCoXWFghAo
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/CAIRNational
Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List
http://tinyurl.com/cairsubscribe
Subscribe to CAIR's Twitter Feed
http://twitter.com/cairnational
Subscribe to CAIR's YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/cairtv
- END -
Plaintiff Likely to Prevail
CAIR: Judge Bars Certification of Okla. Anti-Islam Amendment
Strongly-worded ruling supports Muslim plaintiff's legal arguments
(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/29/2010) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today applauded a strongly-worded ruling by a federal judge in Oklahoma granting an injunction that bars certification of an anti-Islam state ballot measure (SQ 755) passed in the November 2 election.
SEE: Judge Rules in Favor of Muslim Man on State Question 755
http://newsok.com/article/3519080
If it had been certified, SQ 755 would have amended that state's constitution to forbid judges from considering Islamic principles or international law when deciding a case.
Today's ruling by Chief Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ordered a preliminary injunction to block the certification of the amendment by the Oklahoma State Board of Elections until a final determination is made based on the merits of a lawsuit against SQ 755 filed by Muneer Awad, executive director of CAIR's Oklahoma chapter (CAIR-OK).
In her ruling in support of Awad's legal arguments, Judge Miles-LaGrange wrote:
"This order addresses issues that go to the very foundation of our country, our (U.S.) Constitution, and particularly, the Bill of Rights. Throughout the course of our country's history, the will of the 'majority' has on occasion conflicted with the constitutional rights of individuals, an occurrence which our founders foresaw and provided for through the Bill of Rights. . . [emphasis added by re-poster]
"Having carefully reviewed the briefs on this issue, and having heard the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Court finds plaintiff has made a strong showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of his claim asserting a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.
"As set forth above, plaintiff has shown that the actual language of the amendment reasonably, and perhaps more reasonably, may be viewed as specifically singling out Sharia Law (plaintiffís faith) and, thus, is not facially neutral.
"Additionally, as set forth above, the Court finds that plaintiff has shown that there is a reasonable probability that the amendment would prevent plaintiffís will from being fully probated by a state court in Oklahoma because it incorporates by reference specific elements of the Islamic prophetic traditions.
"Further, plaintiff has presented evidence that there is a reasonable probability that Muslims, including plaintiff, will be unable to bring actions in Oklahoma state courts for violations of the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and for violations of their rights under the United States Constitution if those violations are based upon their religion.
"Finally, the Court finds that defendants have presented no evidence which would show that the amendment is justified by any compelling interest or is narrowly tailored."
SEE: Judge Miles-LaGrange's Ruling
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/oklahoma_ruling.pdf
"We applaud today's ruling and welcome the opportunity it offers to demonstrate that Oklahoma's Muslim community simply seeks to enjoy the civil and religious rights guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution," said Awad.
SEE: Intolerance and the Law in Oklahoma (NY Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/opinion/29mon1.html
Awad's lawsuit, based on his own faith-based will, says SQ 755 violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause that bars government bodies from making laws ìrespecting the establishment of religion.î†
SEE: Full Text of Awad's Lawsuit
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/argument.pdf
Oklahoma Surprise: Islam as an Election Issue (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/15/us/15oklahoma.html
"Today marks another day in American history in which our courts have defended the Constitution against those who would deny its protections to a minority community," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad (no relation to Muneer Awad). "We agree with Judge Miles-LaGrange and the U.S. Supreme Court that 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote.'"
Awad added that he hopes the ongoing legal process will expose the campaign of misinformation about Islam targeting Oklahoma voters that was used to promote SQ 755.
CAIR Video: SQ 755 Sponsor Explains Purpose of Amendment on MSNBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ybvivrs_MH0
He said CAIR plans an education campaign in Oklahoma to offer state residents accurate and balanced information about Islamic beliefs and practices and about the American Muslim community.
CAIR Q&A on Oklahoma Anti-Islam Ballot Measure
http://tinyurl.com/2asddqp
Hate messages have been received by Muslim institutions in Oklahoma following the passage of SQ 755.
Video: Rachel Maddow Details Hate Messages Received by Okla. Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYCoXWFghAo
CAIR is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
Become a Fan of CAIR on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/CAIRNational
Subscribe to CAIR's E-Mail List
http://tinyurl.com/cairsubscribe
Subscribe to CAIR's Twitter Feed
http://twitter.com/cairnational
Subscribe to CAIR's YouTube Channel
http://www.youtube.com/cairtv
- END -
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Obama Executive Order On ‘Faith-Based’ Initiative Is Disappointing
November 17, 2010
Today’s White House executive order on “faith-based” funding fails to correct significant constitutional problems and leaves important civil rights issues unresolved, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Americans United applauded President Barack Obama’s decision to require federal agencies to provide alternatives for people who do not want to receive social services at religious charities and also welcomed a process to create greater transparency in the program by requiring that recipient organizations be listed on government Web sites.
But AU is disappointed that the order allows public funds to go directly to houses of worship, allows publicly funded faith-based charities to display religious signs and scriptures and entirely dodges the issue of religious hiring bias by faith-based charities that receive federal funds.
Lynn noted that Obama, as a candidate, vowed to repeal this policy. Today’s order, however, leaves the Bush-era rules in places. A wide array of religious, civil rights and civil liberties organizations have appealed to the president to take action on the issue, and polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose faith-based employment bias.
Lynn said he is still hopeful Obama will see the basic unfairness of publicly funded job discrimination and rescind the Bush policy.
“I don’t believe Barack Obama wants to go down in history as the president who helped George W. Bush roll back civil rights and religious liberty,” Lynn said. “At a time when jobs are scarce, it is especially troubling that qualified applicants can be rejected from government-funded positions because they don’t go to the ‘right’ church.
“Taxpayer money should never be used to underwrite religion or religious bias,” Lynn concluded. ”That’s a fundamental constitutional principle, and it needs to be observed.” Americans United has been wary of the faith-based initiative since the concept was first introduced in the 1990s by then-Sen. John Ashcroft. AU maintains that a special government program that looks for ways to funnel public funds to religious entities is inherently problematic under the First Amendment.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Church-State Watchdog Group Says Order Does Some Good Things, But Ignores Religion-Based Job Bias In Federally Funded Programs
Today’s White House executive order on “faith-based” funding fails to correct significant constitutional problems and leaves important civil rights issues unresolved, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Americans United applauded President Barack Obama’s decision to require federal agencies to provide alternatives for people who do not want to receive social services at religious charities and also welcomed a process to create greater transparency in the program by requiring that recipient organizations be listed on government Web sites.
But AU is disappointed that the order allows public funds to go directly to houses of worship, allows publicly funded faith-based charities to display religious signs and scriptures and entirely dodges the issue of religious hiring bias by faith-based charities that receive federal funds.
“I’m disappointed,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This leaves much of George W. Bush’s faith-based initiative in place. That’s not the change many Americans hoped for when President Obama took office.
“I am particularly frustrated that President Obama still has done nothing to ban hiring bias by publicly funded religious charities,” continued Lynn. “That’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room. No American should be denied a government-funded job because he or she holds the ‘wrong’ views about religion.”
Lynn noted that Obama, as a candidate, vowed to repeal this policy. Today’s order, however, leaves the Bush-era rules in places. A wide array of religious, civil rights and civil liberties organizations have appealed to the president to take action on the issue, and polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose faith-based employment bias.
Lynn said he is still hopeful Obama will see the basic unfairness of publicly funded job discrimination and rescind the Bush policy.
“I don’t believe Barack Obama wants to go down in history as the president who helped George W. Bush roll back civil rights and religious liberty,” Lynn said. “At a time when jobs are scarce, it is especially troubling that qualified applicants can be rejected from government-funded positions because they don’t go to the ‘right’ church.
“Taxpayer money should never be used to underwrite religion or religious bias,” Lynn concluded. ”That’s a fundamental constitutional principle, and it needs to be observed.” Americans United has been wary of the faith-based initiative since the concept was first introduced in the 1990s by then-Sen. John Ashcroft. AU maintains that a special government program that looks for ways to funnel public funds to religious entities is inherently problematic under the First Amendment.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Monday, November 15, 2010
A Win In Louisiana: Textbook Council Backs Bona Fide Biology Books
http://blog.au.org/2010/11/15/a-win-in-louisiana-textbook-council-backs-bona-fide-biology-books/
A Win In Louisiana: Textbook Council Backs Bona Fide Biology Books
November 15th, 2010
By Sandhya Bathija.
Evolution & Creationism, Religion in Public Schools
Could officials in Louisiana finally be ready to listen to the experts, instead of Religious Right zealots?
We have some good news out of Louisiana today – news we can hardly believe.
By a vote of 8-4, the state’s Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council voted to support biology textbooks that uphold sound science and do not allow fundamentalist religious concepts to interfere.
For once, Louisiana has provided a glimmer of hope that maybe it no longer wants to be a science-education laughing stock.
As I mentioned last week, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) opposed proposed new science textbooks, claiming they give too much credibility to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The LFF, a Religious Right organization that promotes creationism including its current variant “intelligent design,” said the books were not in keeping with the Science Education Act, a measure that allows teachers to introduce into the classroom “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” about evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.
On Friday, in response to the LFF’s complaints, the advisory council met for a hearing to review the issue and make a recommendation to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
AU experts and our allies in the state were concerned that the hearing was simply another chance for the LFF to chip away at evolution and sound science curriculum.
As AU Trustee Barbara Forrest wrote on her blog, “Past experience – which has been utterly and entirely consistent since the introduction and passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) in 2008 – suggested that this meeting would be just another railroad job.”
Forrest, a Southeastern Louisiana University professor and co-founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, cited to the state’s previous disregard for science education.
In 2008, the legislature adamantly passed the Science Education Act, after the measure was heavily pushed by the LFF. Then, the state allowed LFF activists to take control of a policy that would implement the Act as well as the review procedure for handling any future complaints over the “supplemental materials” to be used by schools.
That’s why there was little reason to believe Friday’s hearing would be any different. Luckily, we were pleasantly surprised the council shot down the LFF’s complaints.
Instead, teachers, scientists and students who testified in support of the textbooks took home a victory. According to the Associated Press, most of those who testified at the hearing wanted to teach evolution without the interference of religious concepts.
“There is no major research university in this country that teaches intelligent design or anything like that. It is simply not science,” Kevin Carman, dean of the LSU College of Science told the AP. “We need our textbooks to be focused on what is scientifically accurate and not religion.”
Could officials in Louisiana finally be ready to listen to the experts, instead of Religious Right zealots? We really hope so – but it is probably too soon to call.
In any case, we’ll gladly accept this win.
A Win In Louisiana: Textbook Council Backs Bona Fide Biology Books
November 15th, 2010
By Sandhya Bathija.
Evolution & Creationism, Religion in Public Schools
Could officials in Louisiana finally be ready to listen to the experts, instead of Religious Right zealots?
We have some good news out of Louisiana today – news we can hardly believe.
By a vote of 8-4, the state’s Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council voted to support biology textbooks that uphold sound science and do not allow fundamentalist religious concepts to interfere.
For once, Louisiana has provided a glimmer of hope that maybe it no longer wants to be a science-education laughing stock.
As I mentioned last week, the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF) opposed proposed new science textbooks, claiming they give too much credibility to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
The LFF, a Religious Right organization that promotes creationism including its current variant “intelligent design,” said the books were not in keeping with the Science Education Act, a measure that allows teachers to introduce into the classroom “supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials” about evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.
On Friday, in response to the LFF’s complaints, the advisory council met for a hearing to review the issue and make a recommendation to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
AU experts and our allies in the state were concerned that the hearing was simply another chance for the LFF to chip away at evolution and sound science curriculum.
As AU Trustee Barbara Forrest wrote on her blog, “Past experience – which has been utterly and entirely consistent since the introduction and passage of the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) in 2008 – suggested that this meeting would be just another railroad job.”
Forrest, a Southeastern Louisiana University professor and co-founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science, cited to the state’s previous disregard for science education.
In 2008, the legislature adamantly passed the Science Education Act, after the measure was heavily pushed by the LFF. Then, the state allowed LFF activists to take control of a policy that would implement the Act as well as the review procedure for handling any future complaints over the “supplemental materials” to be used by schools.
That’s why there was little reason to believe Friday’s hearing would be any different. Luckily, we were pleasantly surprised the council shot down the LFF’s complaints.
Instead, teachers, scientists and students who testified in support of the textbooks took home a victory. According to the Associated Press, most of those who testified at the hearing wanted to teach evolution without the interference of religious concepts.
“There is no major research university in this country that teaches intelligent design or anything like that. It is simply not science,” Kevin Carman, dean of the LSU College of Science told the AP. “We need our textbooks to be focused on what is scientifically accurate and not religion.”
Could officials in Louisiana finally be ready to listen to the experts, instead of Religious Right zealots? We really hope so – but it is probably too soon to call.
In any case, we’ll gladly accept this win.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
Taxpayers Should Have Right To Challenge Aid To Religious Schools, AU Tells High Court
November 2, 2010
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.
Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.
“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”
The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.
The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.
“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.
“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”
AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.
Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.
“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”
The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.
The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.
In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.
According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/10/taxpayers-should-have-the.html
Taxpayers Should Have Right To Challenge Aid To Religious Schools, AU Tells High Court November 2, 2010
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.
Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.
“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”
The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.
The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.
“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.
“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”
AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.
Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.
“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”
The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.
The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.
In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.
According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.
Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.
“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”
The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.
The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.
“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.
“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”
AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.
Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.
“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”
The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.
The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.
In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.
According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Taxpayers Should Have Right To Challenge Aid To Religious Schools, AU Tells High Court November 2, 2010
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.
Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.
“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”
The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.
The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.
“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.
“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”
AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.
Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.
“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”
The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.
The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.
In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.
According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Church-State Watchdog Group Expresses Disappointment With Obama Stance In Arizona Tuition Tax-Credit Case
The right of taxpayers to challenge public funding of religious education must be preserved, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court tomorrow will hear Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, a case that challenges an Arizona scheme that allows taxpayers to take a 100 percent credit for donations to school tuition organizations that fund religious and other private schools.
Under the controversial program, nearly 92 percent of the funds collected have gone for tuition at religious schools. The set-up is being challenged as a violation of church-state separation, but the case also raises issues of “standing” – the right to sue.
“Americans must have the right to go to court when tax money is diverted to religion,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “Now, some groups want to slam the courthouse door in our faces.”
The Arizona program is supported by TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice, Jerry Falwell Jr.’s Liberty Counsel, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Christian Legal Society and an array of other pro-voucher organizations like the Institute for Justice.
The religious school subsidy is also backed by the Solicitor General’s Office at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Lynn said he was disappointed to see the Obama administration side with right-wing groups in this case. Not only did the Justice Department argue in favor of the Arizona funding scheme, it advocated denying taxpayers’ right to challenge the plan in court. Furthermore, the Solicitor General’s Office requested and was granted 10 minutes to argue in favor of the plan during oral argument before the justices.
“It’s a shame that the Obama administration has taken the wrong side in this case,” Lynn said. “The Arizona scheme diverts scarce tax dollars to religious schools. There is no reason in the world for the administration to support something like that.
“I am even more disappointed that the Justice Department wants to block taxpayers from challenging schemes like this,” Lynn continued. “Conservatives on the Supreme Court have been whittling away at Americans’ right to challenge aid to religion. Now the Obama administration is encouraging them to go even further. It’s inexplicable.”
AU’s brief, filed Sept. 22 in conjunction with the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty and The Interfaith Alliance Foundation, urges the high court to protect taxpayers’ rights to seek redress in court.
Tax credit plans, the brief asserts, must be subject to proper oversight through taxpayer lawsuits, since they are often open to abuse.
“If anything, contemporary fiscal politics suggest that the support of religion through tax credits is even more prone to abuse than is religious support through cash grants,” asserts the brief. “Like most tax cuts, tax expenditures ‘are subjected to considerably less congressional and popular scrutiny than are direct appropriations.’”
The AU brief was drafted by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan along with attorneys Kurt Wimmer, Gregory M. Lipper, Charles Kitcher and Sarah M. Powell of Covington & Burling, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Since 1997, the Arizona program has diverted $349 million in public funds to private schools, with the vast majority of the money going to religious schools.
The program has been plagued with problems. For example, the plan allows parents to earmark donations for specific children. Since the law specifically bars parents from donating to pay for their own child’s tuition, some parents have donated for a friend’s child and vice-versa.
In 2009, two Arizona newspapers reported that much of the largess was going to well-off families – even though the program was pitched as a way to help poor and minority students.
According to the Arizona Republic, two out of every three scholarships in 2007 went to middle- and upper-class students who would have already been able to attend private schools without the tax-credit aid.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)