Americans United Urges Federal Appeals Courts To Uphold Contraceptive Access

 

Church-State Watchdog Files Four Friend-Of-The-Court Briefs Defending Workers’ Access To Birth-Control Coverage

Mar 28, 2013

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told federal courts now considering the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s birth-control mandate that employers do not have a religious liberty right to deny their employees access to contraceptives.

Americans United said the mandate, which requires most businesses to provide workers with health insurance that includes no-cost birth control, should be upheld. If a “conscience” exemption is approved for corporations, the church-state watchdog group says, thousands of Americans will be denied birth-control coverage.

“Conservative religious interest groups are waging an all-out legal war on Americans’ access to birth control,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. “We cannot let them win this battle. No corporation should ever be able to tell its employees that they can’t have access to contraceptive coverage simply because it offends the boss’ religious preference.

“This is clearly one of the most important church-state conflicts now before our courts,” Lynn added. “The Constitution and common sense tell us that Americans should not be denied basic health coverage because of the bogus ‘conscience’ claims of business interests.”

Americans United filed four friend-of-the-court briefs dealing with this issue in the past week. They concerned the following cases:

* Autocam Corporation, et al. v. Sebelius – A Michigan-based for-profit business that manufactures fuel systems, power-steering systems and medical devices seeks an exemption from the mandate due to the objections of its Roman Catholic owners. (6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

* Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. v. Sebelius – The evangelical Christian owners of this Oklahoma-based chain of for-profit craft stores and for-profit bookstores say they should be exempted from the mandate because of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

* Grote Industries, LLC, et al. v. Sebelius – The Indiana-based corporation’s Catholic owners say their business, which is a for-profit, secular corporation that manufactures vehicle safety systems, should not have to provide health insurance that includes free contraceptives because it violates their religious conscience. (7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

* Legatus, et al. v. Sebelius – Weingartz Supply Company is a Michigan-based for-profit corporation that provides outdoor power equipment. Its Catholic owner objects to the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds.(6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals)

In addition to amicus briefs in these four cases, Americans United has previously filed friend-of-the-court briefs in three other contraceptive-access cases pending at federal appeals courts.

The broad legal attack on birth-control coverage is being waged by Religious Right legal groups such as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, TV preacher Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal outfit founded by TV and radio preachers.

"If secular, for-profit corporations win the right to impose their owners' religious beliefs on employees, the consequences will be felt well beyond the issue of contraception,” said Gregory M. Lipper, senior litigation counsel for Americans United and a primary author of the briefs.

“Corporations with owners who object to blood transfusions, psychiatric treatment or even gelatin-covered pills would be able to micromanage their employees' medical care.

“Decades-old laws that protect employees, consumers, and tenants from religious-based discrimination,” Lipper continued, “would also be on thin ice if the plaintiffs prevail here. For a nation with increasing religious diversity, that would be a giant step in the wrong direction."
 

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.

https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/americans-united-urges-federal-appeals-courts-to-uphold-contraceptive-access?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=724ef0c39c-2013-03-20+KY+Lawsuit+Kids+Home&utm_medium=email

The Defense of Freedom Begins in the Military

By KC Boyd, Al Jazeera English

18 March 13

 

The United States Air Force Academy has been pushing its Dominionist Christian beliefs onto its personnel.

he first protest rally since the Vietnam era took take place on Friday, March 8 outside the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). This time the focus was not on the subject of war but on the pervasive Christian Dominionist indoctrination within the Academy in particular, and the military in general. Over the decades, Colorado Springs - the home of the USAFA - has become ground zero for Dominionist Christianity. Perhaps there's something in the water. If not, it's most certainly in the air, for this is where Dominionist leaders the likes of James Dobson and the now-not-gay Ted Haggard cut their evangelising teeth with likely intent to Christianise our military.

Complete at:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/282-98/16527-the-defense-of-freedom-begins-in-the-military

Christian fundamentalists are driving our country into the Dark Ages

I also describe these religious fundies as flat-earthers who deny the evidence of science and even the existence of evidence.   I don't have the education to say for certain, but it seems the flat-earthers are the ones suffering from a mental disease.  Why else the fixation on punishment and privation and the relentless focus on the most distressful tales of their old testament bible?

clip So why is it that the so-called “values voters” are urged to vote against the politician who supports choice, not the politician who wants to shred that “circle of protection” for the poor and vulnerable? Why is it that when politicians want to demonstrate just how religiously righteous they are, they talk about banning same-sex marriage and making contraceptives hard to get, instead of showing what they have done to protect the weak?

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2013/02/christian-fundamentalists-are-driving-our-country-into-the-dark-ages/

All Groups Support Marriage Equality Except Elderly, Ignorant, and Extreme

best clip Clearly, it seems the number of degrees affects the degree of homophobia in society. So, the LGBT community must start considering education a “gay issue” and back tax policies and politicians that work to increase the number of people who graduate from high school and college. An ignorant society is an intolerant society and we can’t forget this.

Finally, we have the good ole’ Evangelicals, who appear resistant to reason and allergic to logic. I mean, what other segment of society regularly abandons their own kids to the street, as Evangelicals often do when they learn of their sexual orientation?

 

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2013/03/33669/

 

 

All Groups Support Marriage Equality Except Elderly, Ignorant, and Extreme | Truth Wins Out

Defense Of Marriage Act Promotes Religion And Should Be Struck Down, Says Americans United

Defense Of Marriage Act Promotes Religion And Should Be Struck Down, Says Americans United

Church-State Watchdog Group Asserts That Law Enshrines Certain Theological Views Into Law

Mar 4, 2013

                  

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an example of government promotion of religion and should be struck down, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

 

Americans United on Friday joined a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that DOMA should be struck down on church-state grounds.

 

 

“DOMA takes the view of marriage held by some – but by no means all – religious groups and enshrines that into law,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This is a clear example of government favoritism toward one religious view over others.”

 

 

The brief notes that religious groups have the right to determine their own parameters for marriage. For example, some churches will not marry interfaith couples and some will not allow a person to remarry after a divorce. These religious standards, the brief says, cannot be injected into secular law.

 

“Under our constitutional scheme, these groups have a fundamental right to adopt and modify the requirements for marriage within their own religious communities,” argues the brief. “But they do not have the right to impose their particular religious view onto the institution of civil marriage.”

 

The brief goes on to argue, “While some religious institutions may have a history of defining marriage as between a man and a woman, that tradition is separate from, and cannot be allowed to dictate, civil law. The legal definition of civil marriage is not tied to particular religious traditions, but instead reflects changes in contemporary understandings of marriage.

 

 

“A religious group cannot be forced to open its doors or its sacraments to those who disagree with its traditions,” it continues, “but neither can the government restrict access to civil marriage to align with any particular religious beliefs.”

 

 

The brief in United States v. Windsor was drafted primarily by attorneys at the law firm of Ropes & Gray and the Anti-Defamation League, with writing assistance provided by Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan.

 

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.

https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/defense-of-marriage-act-promotes-religion-and-should-be-struck-down-says?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=c3fbd4cfe7-2013-03-04+DOMA+Promotes+Religion&utm_medium=email

Tags: 

DOMA

Americans United files amicus brief to strike down California's Prop 8

Americans United has filed a joint amicus brief with the Anti-Defamation League asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down California's Prop 8. The brief points out that many of the conservative religious groups that have filed briefs in the case rely on explicitly religious arguments, and some even cite biblical passages. The ADL and AU urge the justices to reject this line of thinking, asserting that it is often used to deny rights to others.

“Proponents of laws that marginalize disadvantaged groups have long relied on arguments grounded in morality and religion to justify the discrimination,” observes the brief. “Time and again, however, society has come to see these laws as a stain on the nation’s history and to view the religious and moral justifications offered for them as wrong, both spiritually and philosophically.”

https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/2013-3-1_AU-ADL-Brief.pdf

 

More information can be found here:  https://au.org/media/press-releases/marriage-law-should-not-be-based-on-theology-americans-united-tells-supreme?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=9984900871-2013-03-01+Marriage+Law+Not+Theology&utm_medium=email

Voucher Plan That Would Fund Religious Schools In Colorado Upheld

Appeals Court Upholds Voucher Plan That Would Fund Religious Schools In Colorado

Ruling Will Be Appealed To Colorado Supreme Court, ACLU And Americans United Say

Feb 28, 2013

A Colorado appeals court ruled 2-1 today that a voucher plan adopted by the Douglas County School District does not violate the Colorado Constitution by diverting taxpayer money to pay students’ tuition at religious and other private schools.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the national ACLU criticized the ruling.

 

“This misguided decision fails to enforce the Colorado Constitution’s strict prohibitions against public funding of religious education,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate legal director for Americans United. “It’s clear that this voucher plan will funnel taxpayer money primarily into the coffers of religious schools.” 

 

The organizations challenged the program on behalf of a group of parents, clergy and other taxpayers. A lower court had previously struck down the plan.

 

“While families have the right to decide where their children should attend school, the state cannot finance religious education at private institutions,” said Heather L. Weaver, staff attorney for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “Public education funds should be used to help improve our public schools, not to promote religion in violation of the state constitution.”

 

AU and the ACLU plan to file an appeal before the Colorado Supreme Court.

 

“The Colorado Court of Appeals got it wrong today when it found that Douglas County’s scheme to underwrite the religious education of children was constitutional,” says Mark Silverstein, Legal Director for the ACLU of Colorado.  “We hope and expect that the Colorado Supreme Court will ultimately decide this case and affirm the district court’s ruling that diverting taxpayer money to pay students’ tuition at primarily religious, private schools is a clear violation of the religious liberty provisions of the Colorado Constitution.” 

 

“The decision fundamentally misinterprets prior Colorado Supreme Court cases interpreting the religion clauses of the Colorado Constitution,” said attorney Matthew J. Douglas of the Denver office of the international law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, who argued the appeal

and is serving as cooperating counsel for the ACLU and Americans United

. “Ultimately these issues should be decided by the Colorado Supreme Court.”

 

The so-called “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” offered tuition vouchers worth $4,575 to 500 students to spend at religious and other private schools. For the purposes of obtaining state per-pupil educational funds, Douglas County still counted these children as “public school students” attending an imaginary school that exists only on paper.

 

In reality, the voucher money was spent at district-approved “Private School Partners.” As of the filing of the lawsuit, 18 of the 23 approved Private School Partners are religious.

 

Dissenting from the 2-1 decision, Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Steve Bernard wrote, “In my view, [the Colorado Constitution] prohibits public school districts from channeling public money to private religious schools. I think that the Choice Scholarship Program is a pipeline that violates this direct and clear constitutional command.”

 

The lawsuit, LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education, argues that the voucher plan violates the Colorado Constitution’s ban on the use of public funds for religious schools and state laws that require educational funds to pay for public education and remain under government control.

 

The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas, Timothy R. Macdonald, and Michelle K. Albert of Arnold & Porter LLP; Luchenitser and Ayesha N. Khan of Americans United; Weaver and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; and Silverstein and Sara Rich of the ACLU of Colorado.

 

 

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.

https://www.au.org/media/press-releases/appeals-court-upholds-voucher-plan-that-would-fund-religious-schools-in?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=9bdb3bb809-2013-02-28+Court+Upholds+CO+Vouchers&utm_medium=email

Disingenuous Discourse: Sectarian Lobbies Defend DOMA, Prop 8 On Secular Grounds

Feb 20, 2013 by Simon Brown in Wall of Separation

Most of these groups are tossing around some pretty flimsy secular arguments in a weak attempt to make it seem like their opposition isn’t based in religious dogma. We know better.

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers two cases dealing with same-sex marriage, the Religious Right and its allies are attempting to sway the justices with a barrage of briefs in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8.

Most of these groups are tossing around some pretty flimsy secular arguments in a weak attempt to make it seem like their opposition isn’t based in religious dogma. We know better.

Consider this breakdown from USA Today, which shows the various arguments from religious lobbies that want their sectarian doctrines to be enforced by the civil marriage laws of the United States. The article notes that one of the most quoted sources among these many legal briefs is none other than the Bible.

Still, some tried to pretend that they support DOMA and Prop 8 for secular reasons.

Take the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops said that if gay marriage is legal, they would be forced to accept it in order to remain tax exempt and be eligible for government contracts.

“If the Constitution were construed to require government affirmation of same-sex relationships as marriage, it would seem a short step to requiring such affirmation as a condition of receiving government contracts, participating in public programs or being eligible for tax exemption,” the bishops said. “Those who disagree with the government's moral assessment of such relationships would find themselves increasingly marginalized and denied equal participation in American public life and benefits.”

That seems highly unlikely. The bishops are already known to discriminate and ignore the provisions outlined in government contracts if they contradict their beliefs, and yet Catholic organizations remain tax exempt and Catholic groups continue to secure federal contracts for various services. And, frankly, if the bishops don’t want to serve legally married gay couples on the same basis as straight couples, maybe they shouldn’t get government grants.

The bishops’ brief also brought up the old logical fallacy that legalizing gay marriage will lead to all sorts of other legalizations, like marriage among minors, relatives or polygamists.


No one is seriously arguing for the legalization of any of those things, and having same-sex marriage on the books no more legitimizes incest than does traditional marriage.


Others, like the Family Research Council, said gay marriages can’t fulfill the primary purpose of marriage, which is child bearing.


But what about couples who marry when they are too old to have kids or couples who simply don’t want to have them?  Would the Family Research Council support a ban on those marriages?
Still other groups cited historical reasons for supporting DOMA and Prop 8.

“Before 2003, same-sex marriage had never existed in the United States, and it still is comparatively rare,” said the Marriage Law Foundation, a group of college professors, in a brief. “Indeed, before 2000, it had never existed in human history.”


That proves absolutely nothing. Any history of discrimination is wrong, and just because something is tradition doesn’t mean it’s right. Slavery was a “tradition” in America from 1619-1865 and you don’t see many people arguing for the return of that.

Then there’s the Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church. There is no question that group spews vile hatred, but at least it is up front about the religious basis for its opposition to same-sex marriage.

“Same-sex marriage will destroy this nation,” the group said in its brief. “If the leaders of this country treat what God has called abominable as something to be respected, revered, and blessed with the seal of approval of the government, that will cross a final line with God.”


American laws should be based on fairness, justice and equality, not religious dogma. Let’s hope the Supreme Court makes its decision based on those concepts and isn’t fooled by sectarian lobbies trying to disguise their doctrines with paper-thin secular farces.

https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/disingenuous-discourse-sectarian-lobbies-defend-doma-prop-8-on-secular

Americans United Urges U.S. House To Reject Taxpayer-Funded Repair Of Houses Of Worship

Americans United Urges U.S. House To Reject Taxpayer-Funded Repair Of Houses Of Worship

Bill Would Authorize Federal Agency To Pay For Rebuilding Of Houses Of Worship Damaged By Hurricane Sandy

Feb 13, 2013

Taxpayers should not be asked to pay for reconstruction of houses of worship damaged during hurricanes and other natural disasters, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Americans United is urging the U.S. House of Representatives to vote against HR 592, a measure that would authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency to issue direct grants to churches and other religious institutions. 

 

 

On Wednesday, the House is scheduled to take up the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013. Some religious lobbies are urging Congress and the Obama administration to approve aid to churches, synagogues and other houses of worship that were damaged last October by Hurricane Sandy.

 

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director,

“A fundamental rule of American life is that congregants, not the taxpayers, pay for the construction and repair of houses of worship. We must not let a storm sweep away the wall of separation between church and state.”
 

Americans United says public funding of religion violates the U.S. Constitution and a long line of federal court decisions bars government support for buildings used primarily for worship.

 

 

Lynn noted that the George W. Bush administration, which approved an array of “faith-based” subsidies, drew the line at FEMA funding of church reconstruction in the wake of Hurricane Katrina

In a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives, AU Legislative Director Maggie Garrett noted that houses of worship, like most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible for government loans – just not direct grants – to rebuild. 

 

 

Garrett said houses of worship are not being singled out for unfair treatment as some claim. FEMA, she said, only funds nonprofits with facilities that are used for emergency services and other essential, government-like activities. Eligible facilities, such as community centers, must also be open to the general public.  

 

 

“Although it may not be seem easy in times of tragedy to tell those seeking aid that they are ineligible for government grants,” wrote Garrett, “the bar on the government rebuilding of houses of worship is an important limitation that exists to protect religious freedom for all. 

 

“It upholds the fundamental principle that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a religion with whom he or she disagrees,” she continued, “and that the government should never support building (“establishing” religion in its most basic form) religious sanctuaries.  And, it protects against the government favoring, or creating the perception of favoritism for, certain religions over others.”    

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.

February 12, 2013

Re: Oppose HR 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 Dear Representative:

Americans United writes to express our strong opposition to HR 592, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013, which will be debated on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday, February 13. The sole purpose of the bill is to authorize the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue direct grants to fund the rebuilding of houses of worship. We oppose this bill because such funding would violate the Constitution and represent a significant shift in longstanding federal policy. Indeed, the George W. Bush Administration followed the policies of the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Administrations when it disallowed FEMA grants for the rebuilding of "houses of worship" after Hurricane Katrina.1

1 Alan Cooperman, "Parochial Schools to Get U.S. Funds for Rebuilding," Wash. Post, Oct. 19, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801622.html.

2 Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) (holding unanimously that a government subsidy used to construct buildings at colleges and universities was constitutional only if the buildings could never be used for religious activities); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (upholding issuance of revenue bonds to finance the construction and renovation of facilities because the law included a condition barring government-financed buildings from being used for religious worship or instruction); Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973).

3 Nyquist, 413 U.S. at 777.

4 Recent federal court decisions, including Community House v. Boise, 490 F.3d 1041, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007), 567 F.3d 278 (6th Cir. 2009), apply Tilton’s holding that "to avoid an Establishment Clause violation, a publicly financed government building may not be diverted to religious use." The only case that diverts from this longstanding precedent is one from the Sixth Circuit, American Atheists v. City of Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth. Yet, even this case does not stand for the proposition that federal grants can fund the reconstruction of houses of worship. Instead, the case distinguishes Tilton and Nyquist, arguing that the grant program before the Sixth Circuit was a "one-time grant limited to exterior cosmetic repairs" and "one-time surface-level improvements" that served a particular purpose and was very limited in scope. Id. at 298-99.

5 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 819 (1999) (quoting Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 842 (1995)) (Thomas, J.); see also id. at 856 (O’Connor, J., controlling and concurring opinion) (describing Tilton as striking down the grant statute because it lacked a "secular content requirement").

As someone who was born and raised at the Jersey shore and whose parents are still making repairs to their home and cleaning up after the storm, I certainly appreciate the needs the community faces. But, I also recognize that the Constitution places certain limits on the government’s ability to fund houses of worship. The Tilton/Nyquist 2 line of Supreme Court cases firmly establish that it is constitutionally impermissible for the government to provide aid for the construction and repair of houses of worship. In accordance with these cases, "the State may not erect buildings in which religious activities are to take place" and "it may not maintain such buildings or renovate them when they fall into disrepair."3

The rule set down by the Supreme Court in these cases remains controlling law as neither they, nor the principal behind them, have ever been overruled in any subsequent Supreme Court decision.4 To the contrary, in its more recent cases examining the constitutionality of government aid to religious institutions, the Supreme Court has maintained that direct money grants create "special Establishment Clause dangers."5 Congress too just recently recognized the applicability of this precedent when it limited green construction funding in the Recovery Act to buildings in which secular activities take place.

Furthermore, proponents’ claims that Tilton and Nyquist are inapplicable and that Congress should instead look to free speech forum and in-kind aid cases must be rejected. The Supreme Court has squarely held that free speech forum cases are inapposite to federal aid cases6 and that money grants are distinct from in-kind funds. 7

6 In Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3 (2004), the Supreme Court explained that the free speech line of case law does not apply to federal aid cases: "Davey, relying on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, contends that the Promise Scholarship Program is an unconstitutional viewpoint restriction on speech. But the Promise Scholarship Program is not a forum for speech. . . . Our cases dealing with speech forums are simply inapplicable."

7 Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. at 819 (explaining that direct grants of money create "special Establishment Clause dangers").

8 Eligible facilities are limited to "educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial" facilities and "any private nonprofit facility that provides essential services of a governmental nature to the general public (including museums, zoos, performing arts facilities, community arts centers, libraries, homeless shelters, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, shelter workshops, and facilities that provide health and safety services of a governmental nature)." 42 U.S.C. § 5122(10).

9 Disaster Assistance Policy 9521.1 – Community Center Eligibility, http://www.fema.gov/9500-series-policy-publications/95211-community-center-eligibility: "Facilities established or primarily used for political, athletic, religious, recreational, vocational or academic training, conferences, or similar activities are not eligible PNP community center

It is also important to note that houses of worship, like most non-profit organizations and businesses, are eligible for government loans—just not direct grants—to rebuild. In addition, houses of worship are not the only nonprofits that are ineligible for direct grants for reconstruction. To the contrary, only nonprofits with facilities that are used for emergency, essential, and government-like activities are eligible.8 And, eligible facilities, such as community centers, must also be open to the general public.9 To say that houses of worship are singled out among all other non-profits, therefore, is untrue. It is similarly inaccurate to claim that FEMA grants should be extended to houses of worship because the grants are akin to "general government services," such as police or fire. FEMA grants—unlike general government services —are not available to every business, nonprofit, private residence, or other building.

Although it may not seem easy in times of tragedy to tell those seeking aid that they are ineligible for government grants, the bar on the government rebuilding of houses of worship is an important limitation that exists to protect religious freedom for all. It upholds the fundamental principle that no taxpayer should be forced to fund a religion with whom he or she disagrees and that the government should never support building ("establishing" religion in its most basic form) religious sanctuaries. And, it protects against the government favoring, or creating the perception of favoritism for, certain religions over others.

Houses of worship are special in our country and our constitution. They are both the place where worship takes place, and, adorned with religious symbols and iconography, are themselves expressions of worship. Accordingly, they are accorded special protections—exemptions, accommodations, and tax deductions. Restrictions on government funding of religion is also a special protection—they protect the conscience of the individual taxpayer, safeguard the autonomy of the religious institution, and ensure an equal playing field for all religions by prohibiting the government from playing favorites.

For the reasons listed above, we urge you to oppose HR 592.

Sincerely,

Maggie Garrett Legislative Director

complete at:

https://www.au.org/files/pdf_documents/AU%20Letter%20House%20Floor.pdf?utm_source=AU+main+email+list&utm_campaign=03327ef2a7-2013-02-13+Reject+HR.592!&utm_medium=email

The Truth About Religious Freedom and the ACA

 

from Flickr by Steve Rhodes

Your right to swing your fist in religious practice

 ends when your fist reaches my nose, or uterus.

clip  This particular conversation is indicative of a broader unwillingness on the left—inspired in part by Obama’s efforts toward a declawed, pan-American progressivism—to acknowledge publicly that there are true value differences across the same aisle that the President so loves to straddle. In a gut-check reflex, we all agree that religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed. But we don’t actually agree on what that means. While unwilling to say clearly that there are basic rights—such as access to healthcare—that override religious beliefs by definition, the left will continue to sound, as the right so often does, as if it’s playing dumb.

complete at:
 http://www.guernicamag.com/daily/katie-ryder-the-truth-about-religious-freedom-and-the-aca/