http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/21/nation/la-na-court-religion-20100422
or http://tinyurl.com/25j54ef
Why religion could affect Obama's court nomination
With the exit of John Paul Stevens, the court will be without a Protestant for the first time. Catholics dominate. Does it matter?
April 21, 2010|By James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Legislature and the Senate are acting like an amateur gynecologist
The Legislature and the Senate are acting like an amateur gynecologist," State Sen. Jim Wilson (D-Tahlequah) said in an interview in the Tulsa World
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100420_16_A1_OKLAHO444183&archive=yes or
Oklahoma Senate Passes Five Controversial Abortion Bills
Grace Huang, Truthout: "The Oklahoma Senate passed five abortion bills Monday night, which opponents have said will severely limit a woman's ability to get an abortion and would entail some of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country. One of the bills would force a woman to get an ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion and be shown the image and given a detailed explanation of it, even if she wishes otherwise."
Read the Article
complete at: http://tinyurl.com/296m3ly
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100420_16_A1_OKLAHO444183&archive=yes or
http://tinyurl.com/2fe7p7q
"This is not about abortion. This is about the Bible."
Oklahoma Senate Passes Five Controversial Abortion Bills
Grace Huang, Truthout: "The Oklahoma Senate passed five abortion bills Monday night, which opponents have said will severely limit a woman's ability to get an abortion and would entail some of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country. One of the bills would force a woman to get an ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion and be shown the image and given a detailed explanation of it, even if she wishes otherwise."
Read the Article
complete at: http://tinyurl.com/296m3ly
Judge’s ruling won’t stop prayer day, Oklahoma organizer says
Judge’s ruling won’t stop prayer day, Oklahoma organizer says
www.newsok.com/judges-ruling-wont-stop-prayer-day-oklahoma-organizer-says/article/3455941
quotes from OK AU's president, Mike Fuller:
"I was in complete and total agreement with her ruling, but the fact that she ruled that way caught me totally by surprise,” said Mike Fuller, president of the Oklahoma City chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"The National Day of Prayer should never have been established, and I hope this ruling withstands any appeals which may occur.”
Congress established the day in 1952 and in 1988 set the first Thursday in May as the day for presidents to issue proclamations asking Americans to pray.
snip--
Meanwhile, Fuller and the Rev. Bruce Prescott said they are waiting to see what happens next regarding Crabb’s ruling.
"Our government does not have any business directing the citizens of this country on when, how or if to pray,” Fuller said.
Prescott, a Baptist minister and director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, shared similar sentiments. Prescott, who also is president of the Norman chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the country is better off if the government remains neutral in matters of religion.
"The government shouldn’t be telling people to pray. Let the preachers do that,” he said.
complete at: http://www.newsok.com/judges-ruling-wont-stop-prayer-day-oklahoma-organizer-says/article/3455941
Sunday, April 18, 2010
You Won't Believe What You Hear --
SAVE THE DATE!
You Won't Believe What You Hear --
OKC Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church & State
Saturday, May 8, 2010, Downtown Public Library, 4th floor, Friends Event Room, 10am to 3pm
It's time for the 2010 edition of the OKC Americans United Spring Dialogue
We'll have speakers who will bring special viewpoints to their presentation of religious/civil separation issues : gay-- with Rev. Scott Jones of Cathedral of Hope in OKC, and Islam-- with Razi Hashmi, executive director, CAIR Oklahoma.
Additional presentations will be made by Rev. Jeff Hamilton of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma City and former state representative, and keynote speaker Sandhya Bathija – Communications Associate from the national office of Americans United for Separation of Church & State.
Registration will be needed and a small fee will be charged to offset expenses and provide a lunch for those so choosing.
More details will follow soon.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
This mythical individual -- hypothetical “reasonable person.”
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (D.C.)
“A reasonable location for graduation” April 2010
The BJC and National AU work together on many Church & State legal issues.
authored by James Gibson, Staff Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
One of the more intriguing concepts taught in law school is the hypothetical “reasonable person.” This mythical individual — who always acts properly, regardless of context — is a means of analyzing liability and other legal issues. The reasonable person does not remove the safety guard from a lawn mower when there are numerous, easily readable, large-print warnings not to do so. The reasonable person does not juggle butcher knives. The reasonable person does not believe that a carbolic smoke ball will cure the common cold.
The reasonable person also shows up in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government entities cannot take actions that a reasonable person would interpret as an endorsement of religion. In this area, however, it is not always clear what a reasonable person would perceive. In recent years, a number of controversies — and some lawsuits — have risen in communities where public school graduations (as opposed to voluntary, non-school sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies) are held in religious venues, such as Christian churches.
Although having graduation exercises in a religious venue is commonplace in some communities — particularly in rural areas where a local church is the only place large enough to hold the crowd — it can sometimes place persons of faith, or no faith, in a difficult position. Recently, a Muslim high school student in New Jersey objected to his high school graduation taking place in a Christian church because entering a non-Islamic house of worship was anathema to his faith. Similar tenets would apply to graduates who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Reasonable minds can disagree; most likely for every Christian who would not be offended by attending graduation in a mosque, there is one who would be.
With reasonability in the eye of the beholder, what authority is there to guide the well-intentioned reasonable person? Unfortunately, very little. Although the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of cases involving graduation prayer, it has never heard a case on holding public school graduations in religious venues. A handful of federal trial and appellate courts have considered the issue, but no decision created a settled principle of law for these cases.
Lacking clear guidance from the courts, with only the Supreme Court’s general admonition that government shall not endorse or appear to endorse religion as a guide, where is the line of demarcation in these cases? The President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships recently grappled with a similar issue: whether religious organizations that receive government grants to carry out secular social services should be allowed to do so in rooms that contain religious art, Scripture, messages or symbols. After spirited debate, the Council ultimately voted to recommend that the president institute what is, essentially, a “reasonability standard”: that is, a religious service provider is not required to remove or cover up the accoutrements of faith, but is encouraged to do so whenever feasible if its beneficiaries object.
These concepts are equally applicable and administrable in the public school graduation setting. Our reasonable person would undoubtedly concede that although most graduations scheduled for religious venues are not veiled attempts to proselytize, graduation ceremonies should be held in a non-religious venue whenever possible. When a religious venue is the most suitable option, measures should be taken to ensure that there is no implicit or explicit linkage between the civic event and the host religious venue. For example, a church should not have to cover up its stained glass windows — our reasonable person would surely balk at the prospect of rising graduates and others having to fumble about in semidarkness. Nor does the religious venue need to remove a mounted cross or other religious imagery from the walls of the room being used. But easily achieved and painlessly reversed accommodations, such as covering up them elsewhere, should be items or temporarily removing portable religious objects or texts and storing made.
In any case, when a religious venue is to be the site of a public school graduation, it is incumbent upon school administrators and religious leaders to find a way to be good neighbors without unduly associating church and state. The school should not place unreasonable demands on its religious host, and the host should not take advantage of a community need to further its religious mission. There is always the potential for conflict when religious venues and public ceremonies — or vice versa — intersect, but as is the case in other areas of church-state relations, education and the willingness to be reasonable can go a long way toward avoiding controversy.
“A reasonable location for graduation” April 2010
The BJC and National AU work together on many Church & State legal issues.
authored by James Gibson, Staff Counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
One of the more intriguing concepts taught in law school is the hypothetical “reasonable person.” This mythical individual — who always acts properly, regardless of context — is a means of analyzing liability and other legal issues. The reasonable person does not remove the safety guard from a lawn mower when there are numerous, easily readable, large-print warnings not to do so. The reasonable person does not juggle butcher knives. The reasonable person does not believe that a carbolic smoke ball will cure the common cold.
The reasonable person also shows up in Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that government entities cannot take actions that a reasonable person would interpret as an endorsement of religion. In this area, however, it is not always clear what a reasonable person would perceive. In recent years, a number of controversies — and some lawsuits — have risen in communities where public school graduations (as opposed to voluntary, non-school sponsored baccalaureate ceremonies) are held in religious venues, such as Christian churches.
Although having graduation exercises in a religious venue is commonplace in some communities — particularly in rural areas where a local church is the only place large enough to hold the crowd — it can sometimes place persons of faith, or no faith, in a difficult position. Recently, a Muslim high school student in New Jersey objected to his high school graduation taking place in a Christian church because entering a non-Islamic house of worship was anathema to his faith. Similar tenets would apply to graduates who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Reasonable minds can disagree; most likely for every Christian who would not be offended by attending graduation in a mosque, there is one who would be.
With reasonability in the eye of the beholder, what authority is there to guide the well-intentioned reasonable person? Unfortunately, very little. Although the Supreme Court has ruled on a number of cases involving graduation prayer, it has never heard a case on holding public school graduations in religious venues. A handful of federal trial and appellate courts have considered the issue, but no decision created a settled principle of law for these cases.
Lacking clear guidance from the courts, with only the Supreme Court’s general admonition that government shall not endorse or appear to endorse religion as a guide, where is the line of demarcation in these cases? The President’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships recently grappled with a similar issue: whether religious organizations that receive government grants to carry out secular social services should be allowed to do so in rooms that contain religious art, Scripture, messages or symbols. After spirited debate, the Council ultimately voted to recommend that the president institute what is, essentially, a “reasonability standard”: that is, a religious service provider is not required to remove or cover up the accoutrements of faith, but is encouraged to do so whenever feasible if its beneficiaries object.
These concepts are equally applicable and administrable in the public school graduation setting. Our reasonable person would undoubtedly concede that although most graduations scheduled for religious venues are not veiled attempts to proselytize, graduation ceremonies should be held in a non-religious venue whenever possible. When a religious venue is the most suitable option, measures should be taken to ensure that there is no implicit or explicit linkage between the civic event and the host religious venue. For example, a church should not have to cover up its stained glass windows — our reasonable person would surely balk at the prospect of rising graduates and others having to fumble about in semidarkness. Nor does the religious venue need to remove a mounted cross or other religious imagery from the walls of the room being used. But easily achieved and painlessly reversed accommodations, such as covering up them elsewhere, should be items or temporarily removing portable religious objects or texts and storing made.
In any case, when a religious venue is to be the site of a public school graduation, it is incumbent upon school administrators and religious leaders to find a way to be good neighbors without unduly associating church and state. The school should not place unreasonable demands on its religious host, and the host should not take advantage of a community need to further its religious mission. There is always the potential for conflict when religious venues and public ceremonies — or vice versa — intersect, but as is the case in other areas of church-state relations, education and the willingness to be reasonable can go a long way toward avoiding controversy.
Federal Court Decision Striking Down National Day Of Prayer
Congress Has No Business Telling Americans When Or How To Pray, Says AU’s Lynn
April 15, 2010
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today praised a federal district court for striking down the congressionally mandated National Day of Prayer.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the federal law violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Crabb held that the sole purpose of the federal law “is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, “This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty. Congress has no business telling Americans when or how to pray.
“The Constitution forbids the government to meddle in religious matters,” Lynn continued. “Decisions about worship should be made by individuals without direction from elected officials. That’s what freedom is all about.”
Lynn said the National Day of Prayer is of recent vintage. It was created by Congress in 1952. The scheduling of the event used to change, but it was codified by Congress in 1988 (after pressure from the Religious Right) as the first Thursday in May.
Lynn noted that America’s Founders did not intend for government to intrude in Americans’ individual religious choices. Thomas Jefferson, for example, refused to issue prayer proclamations, observing, “Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, issued a few prayer proclamations at the behest of Congress during the War of 1812. But he later wrote that he regretted the move.
Governmental religious proclamations, Madison observed, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” He warned that there would always be a tendency “to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.”
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/2010/04/au-praises-federal-court.html
April 15, 2010
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today praised a federal district court for striking down the congressionally mandated National Day of Prayer.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the federal law violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
Crabb held that the sole purpose of the federal law “is to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer, an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function in this context. In this instance, the government has taken sides on a matter that must be left to individual conscience.”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, said, “This decision is a tremendous victory for religious liberty. Congress has no business telling Americans when or how to pray.
“The Constitution forbids the government to meddle in religious matters,” Lynn continued. “Decisions about worship should be made by individuals without direction from elected officials. That’s what freedom is all about.”
Lynn said the National Day of Prayer is of recent vintage. It was created by Congress in 1952. The scheduling of the event used to change, but it was codified by Congress in 1988 (after pressure from the Religious Right) as the first Thursday in May.
Lynn noted that America’s Founders did not intend for government to intrude in Americans’ individual religious choices. Thomas Jefferson, for example, refused to issue prayer proclamations, observing, “Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
James Madison, considered the Father of the Constitution, issued a few prayer proclamations at the behest of Congress during the War of 1812. But he later wrote that he regretted the move.
Governmental religious proclamations, Madison observed, “seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” He warned that there would always be a tendency “to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect.”
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/2010/04/au-praises-federal-court.html
Friday, April 9, 2010
Americans United Praises Justice Stevens' Record On Church And State
Watchdog Group Says Justice’s Replacement Must Respect Church-State Separation And Religious Freedom
April 9, 2010
Americans United for Separation of Church and State today praised Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens for his record of support for church-state separation and expressed the hope that his replacement will hold similar views.
Stevens, the oldest member of the court, announced this morning that he will retire at the end of this term. President Barack Obama is expected to soon reveal his choice to replace Stevens.
“Justice Stevens is an icon -- a thoughtful, perceptive justice who understands the role of church-state separation in American life,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It is vitally important that President Obama choose a high court nominee who understands that government may not meddle in matters of religion.
“The high court is deeply divided on church-state issues,” Lynn continued. “It is imperative that Stevens’ replacement be someone who understands and upholds the constitutional mandate of church-state separation.”
Read the full press release at www.au.org
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Strange Bedfellows
Graphic from: http://notravelmlms.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-what-strange-bedfellows.html
complete article here: http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/04/strange-bedfellows.html
Strange Bedfellows
April 2010 Featured
By Rob Boston
Can The Mad Hatters Of The Religious Right Get An Invitation To The Tea
Party?
A few months after Barack Obama was sworn in as president, the American
Family Association (AFA) began blasting its members with e-mails promoting
events called “TEA parties.”
Opposition to Obama had coalesced quickly among the far right, and the AFA –
which loathes Obama because of his support for legal abortion, gay rights
and other social issues – was fast to join the cause.
complete article here: http://www.au.org/media/church-and-state/archives/2010/04/strange-bedfellows.html
Strange Bedfellows
April 2010 Featured
By Rob Boston
Can The Mad Hatters Of The Religious Right Get An Invitation To The Tea
Party?
A few months after Barack Obama was sworn in as president, the American
Family Association (AFA) began blasting its members with e-mails promoting
events called “TEA parties.”
Opposition to Obama had coalesced quickly among the far right, and the AFA –
which loathes Obama because of his support for legal abortion, gay rights
and other social issues – was fast to join the cause.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Religious Right Filmmaker’s Anti-Gay Past Is Exposed By Americans United
Los Angeles Movie Premiere Canceled After Religious Right Filmmaker’s Anti-Gay Past Is Exposed By Americans United
Christian Action Network President Lies To News Media
About Group’s Controversial Fund-Raising Letters
March 24, 2010
The Los Angeles premiere of a Religious Right group’s film has been canceled after Americans United for Separation of Church and State exposed the organization’s track record of virulently anti-gay rhetoric.
Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, had been scheduled to attend the premiere of “Islam Rising: Geert Wilders’ Warning to the West,” a film produced by the Christian Action Network (CAN). He canceled after learning about CAN’s record of anti-gay extremism.
Other supporters of the May 1 event have dropped out as well, leading to the premiere’s cancellation.
Wilders, who frequently works to convince gay rights groups in the Netherlands about the dangers of Islamic fundamentalism, cut his ties with CAN after a Dutch newspaper reported on the organization’s history of harsh anti-gay activism.
The newspaper, De Pers, contacted Americans United yesterday for information about the Virginia-based CAN. Americans United provided copies of several CAN fund-raising letters from the 1990s and early 2000s.
In one of the letters, CAN President Martin Mawyer attacked comedian Ellen DeGeneres, saying she had “DUMPED HER FILTHY LESBIAN LIFESTYLE IN THE CENTER OF YOUR LIVING ROOM” and referred to her as a “SODOMITE.”
In another letter, Mawyer blasted a gay-themed event at Disney World, labeling it “disgusting” and “vile.” In yet another, he attacked gays for adopting children and becoming foster parents, calling it “absolutely sick, demented and perverted!”
The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said the incident should be a lesson to politicians in the United States and abroad.
“We’ve warned political leaders for years not to work with extreme Religious Right organizations,” Lynn said. “These groups have a radical track record, and sooner or later things will blow up in your face.
“The Christian Action Network is a low-rent outfit with a plain history of extremism and bigotry,” Lynn continued. “I don’t know why anyone would want to be associated with it.”
Contacted by De Pers, Mawyer at first tried to deny that CAN had issued the letter about DeGeneres, even though it bears his signature. He called it an internet hoax. But AU provided De Pers with a copy of the letter as well as several other anti-gay CAN letters signed by Mawyer.
After that, Mawyer, a former protégé of the late TV preacher Jerry Falwell, stopped talking to the newspaper. (In recent years, CAN has switched its emphasis from gay bashing to attacks on Islam.)
AU’s Lynn called Mawyer’s lies reprehensible.
“Mawyer claims to run a Christian organization,” said Lynn, himself an ordained Christian minister, “but I think there’s one biblical admonition he overlooked: ‘Thou shall not bear false witness.’”
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.
complete at: http://www.au.org/media/press-releases/archives/2010/03/los-angeles-movie-premiere.html
Committee Members who will be voting this week on the bills
Church - State Separation Info: Committee Members who will be voting this week on the bills
Thanks to the research and activism of Rob Abiera, here are the names of the committee members who will be voting this week on the bills we've been discussing.
If you can only contact one or two legislators, other than your own, consider contacting the chair and vice-chair of each committee.
All contact information for Oklahoma Legislators is available here:
http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/
ACTION ALERT UPDATE: Bible bills in committee
I suggest that we also contact the committee members:
SB1338 - the "NCBCPS" bill - has been assigned to the House Common Education Committee.
okhouse.gov/Committees/Comm_CommitteeMembers.aspx?CommitteeID=81&SubcommitteeID=0
Next meeting is Wednesday - SB1338 is NOT on the agenda. [ This bill is still "live" and the agenda can change in the blink of computer cursor. Don't wait until it's too late. ]
Rep. Coody, Ann - Chair
Rep. Kern, Sally - Vice Chair
Members
Representative Blackwell, Gus
Representative Buck, Samson Ray
Representative Cannaday, Ed
Representative Cox, Doug
Representative Dank, David
Representative Dorman, Joe
Representative Jones, Tad
Representative McDaniel, Jeannie
Representative Sears, Earl
Representative Shumate, Jabar
Representative Sullivan, Daniel
HB2321 - the "Christian Bible" bill - has been assigned to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
oksenate.gov/committees/standing/appropriations.htm
This committee meets on Wednesdays. The agenda for this week's meeting has not yet been posted. [ This bill is still "live" and the agenda can change in the blink of computer cursor. Don't wait until it's too late. ]
Senator Mike Johnson - Chair
Senator David Myers - Vice Chair
Senator Patrick Anderson
Senator Randy Bass
Senator Brian Bingman
Senator Randy Brogdon
Senator Kenneth Corn
Senator Brian Crain
Senator Johnnie Crutchfield
Senator Mary Easley
Senator John Ford
Senator Jay Paul Gumm
Senator Jim Halligan
Senator Ron Justice
Senator Charlie Laster
Senator Debbe Leftwich
Senator Richard Lerblance
Senator Mike Mazzei
Senator Susan Paddack
Senator Jim Reynolds
Senator Gary Stanislawski
Senator Anthony Sykes
Senator Jim Wilson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)