Monthly Archives: April 2017

New York Times

Can Churches Hire Police? Alabama Legislators Reckon With the First Amendment New York Times After the shooting at Sandy Hook and in the wake of similar assaults at churches and schools, Briarwood recognized the need to provide qualified first responders to coordinate with local law enforcement who so heroically and effectively serve their ... A Church Can Have its Own Police Force, Alabama's Senate DecidedNewsweek A church in Alabama could soon get its own police forceCNN Church Can Start Its Own Police Force, Alabama Senate SaysNPR Briarwood Presbyterian Church, PCA -LegiScan all 71 news articles »

Continued here:
Can Churches Hire Police? Alabama Legislators Reckon With the First Amendment - New York Times

DETROIT (AP) Michigan courts can have no role in admission decisions at faith-based schools, a lawyer told the state Supreme Court on Thursday in a case that tests whether a family can sue a Roman Catholic school over their daughter's rejection.

Notre Dame Preparatory School insists federal and state legal precedent protects religious schools under the First Amendment. But a lawyer for a girl who was rejected in 2014 told justices that the lawsuit should be evaluated purely as a case of illegal discrimination.

"It's the kind of case that can be decided without straying into ecclesiastical religious doctrine," Nicholas Roumel said.

Notre Dame Prep in Pontiac told the girl that she wouldn't be admitted to ninth grade because of poor grades. The girl was later diagnosed with dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. The school denied any discrimination based on her learning disabilities.

Attorney James Walsh, who represents the school and its sponsor, the Marist Fathers of Detroit, said courts can't tell a church how to fill its pews or decide who goes to a religious school.

"The pastor, principal whoever makes the decision can say, 'We will not be able to effectively convey our faith to this student.' ... Any inquiry by a court about why a student is or isn't accepted in a Catholic school would cause entanglement by a court in religion," Walsh said.

There's no guarantee that the Michigan Supreme Court will take any action. Justices could drop the case and let a 2015 appeals court decision stand in favor of Notre Dame Prep.

View post:
Michigan court hears dispute over First Amendment, religious school - South Bend Tribune

In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, was prevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.

Yes, Arabic. The language spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide, making it one of the top five languages in the world and reportedly the fastest growing in the U.S., was the culprit.

My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words We will not be silent in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simply speaking Arabic on an airplane was grounds for removal from a flight just last year.

How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesnt have to be.

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities, watch lists, and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.

However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience of being Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last years presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of the surge in hate crimes but little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.

At a New Hampshire town hall, a voter declared to then-candidate Trump, We have a problem in this country. Its called Muslims. He concluded by asking, When can we get rid of them? Mr. Trumps answer: We are going to be looking at a lot of different things.

One could reasonably suggest President Trumps Muslim bans, in both incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.

Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.

Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.

Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nations airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the feared language of Arabic.

In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the ACLU has launched a We the People campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.

I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.

Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.

The slogan on my friends shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by the White Rose, an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase We will not be silent is how they concluded their fourth resistance flyer.

Our fear of Arabic or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving an increase in incidents of hate and bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.

After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic or 45 in English appearing on a billboard near you.

If you want your own sticker copies of the First Amendment translated in Arabic, English and Spanish, they are available for pre-order here.

Originally posted here:
The First Amendment Looks Especially Beautiful in Arabic ... - ACLU (blog)

Analysis Law and Policy

Apr 13, 2017, 4:06pm Jessica Mason Pieklo

On just day three of his time on the Supreme Court, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch will hear arguments in a case that could reshape the landscape of government funding to religious institutions.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch will have been on the job three whole days when he hears arguments in what could be one of the most significant separation of church and state cases to come before the U.S. SupremeCourt in decades.

At first glance,Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer doesnt look like much of a case, let alone one that could bust open the barriers preventing direct government funding of religious institutions. But it is, and that is likelywhy Republicans pushed Gorsuchs confirmation so aggressively. They wanted him on the bench for a reliable conservative vote in Trinity Lutherans favor, and to hopefully bring Justice Anthony Kennedy along with him.

The case, which the Court hears Wednesday, involves a church playground and a Missouri state program that provides grants to help nonprofits buy rubber playground surfaces.The programs goal is to keep used tires out of state landfills and to upgrade playgroundsall good, laudable things.

Trinity Lutheran Church applied for, and was denied, a grant to refurbisha playground for adaycare and preschool it runs. When it was denied funds, the church sued, arguing among other things that its exclusion from the program violates the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause. According to the complaint, being denied grant funding because it is a church discriminates against religious institutions by denying them access to funding that they argue is secular and widely available, thus punishing them for exercising their faith.According to attorneys for the church, the state has no valid First Amendment reason for the exclusion.

Rewire is a non-profit independent media publication. Your tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

DONATE NOW

Not so, say attorneys for the State of Missouri, who argue that denying the grant in no way interferes with the church or its members ability to worship or even run its daycare as it sees fit.Instead, the attorneys for the state argue, giving the church grant dollars would be a violation of the Establishment Clause, because then government dollars would be directly supporting the church by helping it improve its grounds.Trinity Lutheran can pave its playground however it wants, the state argues. It just cant do soon the governments tab, because it is a church and itsdaycare and preschool programs are part of that institution.

The state also argues that its grantprogram is not the kind of generally available public benefit that would elevate it to the level of constitutional scrutiny argued for by Trinity Lutheran. That strict scrutinystandard views government action that restricts constitutionally protected activity like religious exercise as inherently suspect. In other words, the government has to provide a very good reason for why it is acting to curb a fundamental constitutional right. The attorneys note in their complaint that most applicants are rejected and that the grant programsfunding islimited. Furthermore, the program treats all religious institutions the same, by not including any of them as grant recipients.

The case boils down, ultimately, to what constitutional test courts should use when judging grant programs like Missouris that have a secular purposein this case lowering environmental impact and upgrading area playgroundsfrom which religious institutions like Trinity Lutheran have historically been excluded,because of First Amendment limitations on government funding of religious institutions and programs. How the Roberts Court answers that question could have wide-reaching consequences,particularly if the Courtexpands the ways in which religious institutions can receivegovernment dollars.

Which brings us back to newly mintedJustice Gorsuch, who has a complicated record on religious liberty decisions.His tendency to rule in favor of religiously affiliated groups could play a pivotal role in theTrinity Lutherandecision, especially since the church has framed itself as a victim of state hostility toward religious believers.

The case has the potential to change the very nature of social services funding at a time whenreligiously affiliated institutions have taken over large areas of the safety-net marketplace, from gobbling up secular hospitals to running nursing homes and childcare facilities. So far the law has been very clear that those institutions are free to exist in that marketplace and provide the services they do. But they cannot expect to have their work entirely subsidized by taxpayers.

But a blurring of the line between private business, religious activity, and government spending can be traced almost directly to Justice Gorsuch and his role in both the Hobby Lobby case while a judge on the Tenth Circuit, as well as the Little Sisters case. In each, Gorsuch laid out the intellectual framework for flipping the script on how courts could approach claims of government infringement on religious rights. Instead of taking a critical but objective look at the nature of the sincerity of the connection between the alleged government imposition and the actual religious practice at issue, Gorsuchs opinions suggested courts should presume both the religious beliefs are sincereandthat the connection to the plaintiffs religious exercise isreal and burdensome. The Roberts Court was, in the context of abortion rights, already sympathetic to this line of thinking when it ruled on behalf of the plump grandmas protesting clinics and harassing patients to strike down a Massachusetts buffer zone law. Gorsuchs line of reasoning could take the Supreme Court even further down that path.

If a secular, for-profit craft store can be excused from incurring a regulatory fine on the basis of a religious objection to birth control, as the Hobby Lobby opinion ruled, wouldnt the inverse logic work for conservatives on the bench? If the government cant punish secular businesses for launching religious objections to regulations, as was the case in Hobby Lobby, how can the government punish religious institutions by excluding them from certain spending programs that those religious institutions claim do not go to religious practice?

In other words, what should stop a state from directly funding a religious group that also provides secular services? Why cant a church get a government grant to improve its facilities?

These questions areseductively simple, as arethe answers. The First Amendments Establishment Clause and the case law interpreting it saysthat a state government cannot use its spending power to favor one religion over another, either directly or indirectly.

Butwhat the Hobby Lobby decision madeclear is that whenthe line between religion and government spendingis re-framed as the state punishing believers by enforcing its laws,the Roberts Court will likely side with the religious claimants.

Ive written about Gorsuch as a key actor in pushing corporate religious rights under Hobby Lobby, and his record here is clear. If there is a way to both insulate corporations and find a way to expand the reach of evangelicalism into popular culture, than Gorsuch is the legal brains to pave that way. Will that charming personality of his, though, be enough to sway Kennedy, who is likely the critical fifth vote the conservatives need to get a win here?

Well know sometime this summer when the Court releases its opinion.

See more here:
Will Gorsuch Reshape the First Amendment This Summer? - Rewire

The American Civil Liberties Union has released giant billboards featuring the First Amendment, which provides the right to freedom of speech and press. Written in Arabic, Spanish and English, the ACLU's signs cover Times Square, as well as 30 bus stops in Washington, D.C. and a large spot in Los Angeles.

As part of their "We the People" campaign, the nationwide billboards spell out the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

ACLU's Stacy Sullivan spoke about the project with Huffington Post, saying, "Trump came to power on a wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, and it was particularly bad when it came to Muslims.Its a way for us to state our solidarity with those communities under threat and to say what [Trump is] doing is really un-American."

The advocacy organization chose to run the signs in Spanish and Arabic, as well as English, because Muslim and Latinx groups are especially under threat in Trump's America. They also shared a video to accompany the signs with future plans to spread the campaign to more cities and in more languages.

More:
ACLU Protests Trump with First Amendment Billboards Written in ... - Out Magazine

By Shae Slaughter | 4/12/17 10:57pm

Westboro Baptist Church, nails on chalkboards, Tomi Lahren and the guests of The Maury Povich Show. What do these things have in common? Ding, ding, what is things that make my ears bleed when I hear them speak? Just like that you could win a Jeopardy category focused around my life. However, these things also have more in common than just the ability to annoy me, they are also entitled to free speech and protection under the first amendment.

Okay so maybe the nails dont have that right because theyre an inanimate object, but I was trying to make an overarching point. Yikes, right? We actually legally allow churches to yell horrible slurs at military funerals and make their website domain a defamatory statement. We allow people to go on TV and use obscenities when discussing their cheating boyfriends lie detector test. Its frustrating, its intriguing and its legal.

The first amendment, the most well-known of all amendments, is not put in place with censorship and classiness in mind. It is put in place to protect the rights that should be granted to all citizens, the right to opinions and beliefs. The things about free speech is that it exists regardless of whether or not you like what someone is saying. That point brings me back to my first sentence and Tomi Lahren.

Many of you have probably heard of her and her somewhat high pitched rants courtesy of The Blaze and her show on it including her final thoughts. Shes loud, aggressive and unapologetic. All of these traits are intriguing because they arent seen often in women. However, though I can support her strong will, my disapproval for Lahren comes from our opposing viewpoints on almost everything, alongside the harshness and sometimes seemingly misinformed way she seems to preach.

That being said, not long ago her appearance on The View surprised me. A much more understandable and approachable version of herself appeared as Lahren spoke about her views. Her calmer demeanor in a neutral setting allowed for me to listen to her more closely. She even mentioned that she was pro-choice, something that Im sure many people, including myself, were surprised about. Many strictly conservative republicans fall on the other side of that fence. Lahren argued that since she is for limited government that it would be hypocritical to believe that the government still has a say on womens bodies.

After her appearance, many people viewed her in a new light. These people included the owner of The Blaze, the network that Lahrens show appeared on. In a very convenient timing of events she was suspended from her show and ultimately fired. She was punished for speaking her opinion, the very thing that she was initially hired to do.

The thing is, with the first amendment and the country we live in, opinions are necessary and should be encouraged. Shame on The Blaze and like-minded individuals who work to hush those with opinions that conflict their own. We dont have to support what others say, but we do have to support their right to do so.

What kind of country would we be if no one was able to stand up for what they believe in? Thats right, wed be living in a dictatorship, not a democracy. America is supposed to be synonymous with freedom and opportunity. For that reason, I support Lahrens conservative rants and Maury Povichs DNA tests. They might not be my cup of tea, but they might be my very own Boston Tea Party. In other words, shout out to all of you outspoken individuals, keep saying what you will.

See the rest here:
Grand Valley Lanthorn | We need the first amendment - Grand Valley Lanthorn