Pages

Maryland State Legislature considers a Workplace Religious Freedom Act (HB 381)

ANNAPOLIS – The Maryland State Legislature is presently considering a state-level Workplace Religious Freedom Act” (HB 381). The bill, currently working its way through the House where it was heard on February 10, 2010, addresses employee requests for observance of holy days.

Modeled on the Maryland Flexible Leave Act, the Maryland Workplace Religious Freedom Act would require employers with 15 or more employees to allow an employee to use accrued leave to observe a Sabbath, or other holy day, in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief.

The bill purports to require employers to make reasonable attempts to accommodate the sincere religious practices of their employees and is an attempt to overcome some of the hurdles religiously observant employees face as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TWA v. Hardison. In Hardison, the Court stated that employers only need to make a di minimis attempt to accommodate holy day observance or other religious practices and many employers have interpreted this to mean that they do not need to accommodate as a matter of policy.

In his testimony on February 10, 2010, Alejandro J. Beutel, Government Liaison Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington, D.C., wrote, “this bill will move the balance between proper workplace accommodation and the legitimate concerns of businesses in the right direction. It seeks to better fulfill Maryland’s strong commitment to religious liberty without jeopardizing our communities’ economic prosperity – a laudable and achievable goal.”

This bill which focuses on holy day observance is significantly different from the identically named federal Workplace Religious Freedom Act that has been proposed throughout the decade and the recently passed Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act which addressed both holy day observance and religious dress. The Maryland bill also indicates that labor union contracts would trump the individual requests of employees for accommodation if there is a conflict. Also, the bill would provide specific economic relief for the employee in the event that he or she is compelled to work on a holy day in violation of his or her beliefs.

Click here to read the Bill Text in PDF format.

March 31, 2010 | Filed Under Current Events, Employment Law, Legal Issues | Leave a Comment

Should Europe recognize Sunday as the official day of rest? (BBC Video)

Contents

Dr. Michael Schluter, founder of Keep Sunday Special, debates business entrepreneurs and representatives of other faith groups on the issue of whether Europe should adopt Sunday as a uniform day of rest.

Dr. Michael Schluter, founder of Keep Sunday Special, debates business entrepreneurs and representatives of other faith groups on the issue of whether Europe should adopt Sunday as a uniform day of rest.

Part I

Part II

Arrests Made in Christian Militia Police-Killing Plot (CBN)

EXCERPT:

Members of a paramilitary group have been charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and wage war against the United States — and they use God as their reasoning.

The group is active in three Midwest states. The FBI believes some of its members were about to launch a massacre.

March 29, 2010 | Filed Under In the News | Leave a Comment

NJ county’s Sunday buying ban may be checking out (AP)

Thanks to RLTV reader Doug Beasley for finding this story.

EXCERPT:

The Sunday shopping ban in New Jersey’s largest county — among the nation’s last remaining blue laws — may be lifted to satisfy the state’s hunger for more sales tax revenue. The budget proposed last week by new Republican Gov. Chris Christie assumes $65 million in new sales tax revenue by jettisoning the law starting July 1.

While some people may see Bergen County’s blue law as antiquated, many residents view it as quaint and don’t want to lose it.

“Sundays in this town are wonderful,” said Carl Shaw, a 56-year-old Bergen County native who owns Norton Paints in Paramus, which is closed on Sundays by law. “To the people who say ‘I need it now,’ I say ‘Plan ahead or come Saturday or Monday.’”

The few remaining blue laws are mostly in the South and Midwest and mostly limit liquor or car sales on Sundays, said Jacqueline Byers, research director at the National Association of Counties.

Read the full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_blue_law_nj

Stephen Colbert Tests Columbia Prof On Textbooks (Comedy Central)

The Colbert Report

Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

I’s on Edjukashun – Texas School Board

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Reform

The Texas State Board of Education has voted to radically alter textbook lessons for future generations, removing from curricula separation of church and state and references to Thomas Jefferson. In response, Stephen Colbert had textbook author and Columbia professor Eric Foner on his show Tuesday night to talk textbooks and “to answer for his liberal crimes.”

March 25, 2010 | Filed Under Education, Featured Video, In the News, Video | 2 Comments

9th Circuit Upholds the Term ‘God’ in Pledge and on Currency

On March 11, 2009, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and the motto, “In God is Our Trust” on U.S. Currency. The three-judge panel rejected an argument by Sacramento attorney and physician Michael Newdow that the phrases were an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

Writing for the majority, Judge Carlos Bea wrote, ““The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded.”

In Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, 05-17257, the court found 2-1 that teachers leading students to recite the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance did not amount to a religious exercise, but rather was one of the “historical and religious traditions of our country, not a personal affirmation through prayer or invocation that the speaker believes in God.” The court also took into consideration the fact that students could opt out of saying the Pledge on religious grounds, and stated that Newdow did not have standing to pursue the claim as the Pledge was “voluntary.” The phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954.

This time, Judge Bea wrote that Education Code Sec. 57520, which requires each school to conduct “patriotic exercises daily” expresses a secular purpose and does not mandate the text of the pledge or any other patriotic exercise. Judge Stephen Reinhardt dissented, writing that, “The undeniably religious purpose of the ‘under God’ amendment to the Pledge and the inherently coercive nature of its teacher-led daily recitation in public schools ought to be sufficient under any Establishment Clause analysis to vindicate [the plaintiffs’] constitutional claim, and to require that the Pledge of Allegiance, when recited as part of a daily state-directed, teacher-led program, be performed in its original, pre-amendment secular incarnation that served us so well for generations,” he wrote.

Standing to challenge the Pledge was important in this case because in 2005, Newdow had previously won at the 9th Circuit, but the Supreme Court had ruled that Newdow could not pursue the case because he had pursued the case on behalf of his daughter and did not have custody. The U.S. Supreme Court had not decided the merits of the Pledge itself.

Separately, in Newdow v. LeFevre, 06-16344, the court ruled 3-0 that although Newdow did have challenge to sue since he came into contact with coins and paper currency on a daily basis. As this case was decided after the “Pledge” case (Rio Lindo), Judge Reinhardt voted with the majority as he felt required to do so by “precedent” but confirmed again that he believed the majority in Rio Lindo had ruled erroneously.

From this author’s perspective, the 9th Circuit’s ruling appears to be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Marsh v. Chambers (1983) which found that traditional notions of separation of church and state are not violated if there is a long-standing history of the practice and it is more symbolic than religiously meaningful. In Marsh, Nebraska state senator Ernie Chambers had sued in federal court, claiming that the legislature’s practice of opening sessions with prayer violated the separation of church and state. The 8th Circuit had looked at the issue and decided that it did technically violate the First Amendment, but the Supreme Court found that it was indeed constitutional, essentially because it was form, not substance.

While I think Dr. Newdow may have been technically correct in this case, the use of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and on U.S. Currency is a politically charged issue. It has historically been a non-issue for most Americans, but if it were removed by a Supreme Court decision, there would be riots in the streets railing against “activist judges” even if they technically made the correct decision. Most people do not understand the legal basis and operation of the First Amendment, and the backlash against the Courts and the resulting legislative and constitutional changes could outweigh the small degree of harm caused by the usage of these symbols.

If these cases proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court will likely find a way to keep them legal, and might even write a broader decision than Marsh which could extend to more areas of civic religion. From a religious perspective, it is discomfiting, but legally necessary, that the court deny that the use of phrases has any true religious meaning in order for it to remain. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t keeping God’s name in the Pledge and on money under the condition that it is permissible only as long as it is meaningless implicate the 3rd Commandment which specifically states, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who taketh His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7)?

Shawn Boonstra, the speaker and director of It is Written, in his sermon on the 3rd Commandment, describes intent of the commandment as follows:

“The Hebrew word for ‘vain’ in this commandment basically means ‘nothingness,’ ‘vanity,’ ‘emptiness’ or ‘worthless.’ What it’s saying is that you shouldn’t take God’s name in a worthless way. Don’t use God’s name, don’t profess God’s name as if it means nothing. Don’t claim to be a follower of God unless you live like a follower of God. Don’t go around using the name of God and all that it entails unless you’re going to live like you mean it. Don’t cover your personal sins in the name of a God who never, ever sanctions your sins. Don’t defile the name of the Lord. In short, don’t be a religious hypocrite.”

I don’t know if Shawn Boonstra would agree, but it is ironic that although this was a lawsuit brought by an atheist, had he won and the phrases been struck, the result might have actually been more protective of the honor of God. After these rulings stripping the name of God of any religious meaning, those who have so long clamored for God’s name to be mentioned as a civic symbol might want to re-think their position.

###

March 21, 2010 | Filed Under Church and State, Current Events, In the News, Religion | 3 Comments

9th Circuit Holds ‘Ministerial Exception’ Bars Seminarian Employment Case

Contents

Rosas v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Case No. 09-35003 (C.A. 9, Mar. 16, 2010)

Rosas v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Case No. 09-35003 (C.A. 9, Mar. 16, 2010)

EXCERPT:

“The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). The interplay between the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses creates an exception to an otherwise fully applicable statute if the statute would interfere with a religious organization’s employment decisions regarding its ministers. Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc’y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 944, 946-47 (9th Cir. 1999). This “ministerial exception” helps to preserve the wall between church and state from even the mundane government intrusion presented here. In this case, plaintiff Cesar Rosas seeks pay for the overtime hours he worked as a seminarian in a Catholic church in Washington. The district court correctly determined that the ministerial exception bars Rosas’s claim and dismissed the case on the pleadings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Cesar Rosas and Jesus Alcazar were Catholic seminarians in Mexico. The Catholic Church required them to participate in a ministry training program at St. Mary Catholic Church in Marysville, Washington as their next step in becoming ordained priests. At St. Mary, Rosas and Alcazar allegedly suffered retaliation for claiming that Father Yanez sexually harassed Alcazar, and they eventually sued Father Yanez and the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (“defendants”) under Title VII. In addition, Rosas and Alcazar sued under supplemental jurisdiction for violations of Washington’s Minimum Wage Act for failure to pay overtime wages. See Wash. Rev. Code § 49.46.130. The district court dismissed the overtime wage claims on the pleadings, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), and Rosas’s overtime wage claim is the only issue on appeal.

Because the judgment was on the pleadings, the pleadings alone must be sufficient to support the district court’s judgment. We thus base our decision on the very few allegations in Rosas’s complaint. Rosas alleges as follows:

1.3 . . . The Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle hosted [Rosas] as [a] participant[ ] in a training/pastoral ministry program for the priesthood. 2.2 Cesar Rosas entered the seminary to become a Catholic priest in 1995 in Mexico.

2.3 As part of [his] preparation for ordination into the priesthood, the Catholic Church required [Rosas] to engage in a ministerial placement outside [his] diocese, under the supervision of a pastor of the parish into which [he was] placed. The Archdiocese of Seattle sends seminarians to Mexico and has Mexican seminarians come to its parishes. [Rosas was] placed in St. Mary Parish in Marysville, Washington under the supervision of defendant Fr. Horatio Yanez.

2.10 . . . [Rosas] was hired to do maintenance of the church and also assisted with Mass. He . . . worked many overtime hours he was not compensated for.

Read the full decision which includes a primer on the ‘ministerial exception’ at http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0310%2F09-35003

March 21, 2010 | Filed Under Church and State, Current Events, Employment Law, Legal Issues | Leave a Comment

Washington State Bill to Unionize Child Care Centers Dies in Committee

Contents

Washington State Bill to Unionize Child Care Centers Dies in Committee

Washington State Bill to Unionize Child Care Centers Dies in Committee

We have good news from the State of Washington. You may have read our last newsletter about the bill that labor unions were trying to pass that would unionize private child care centers, and including faith-based preschools, and categorize their workers as government employees for purposes of union due, so long as they accepted children who received government subsidies in order to attend.

Labor unions recently passed similar legislation in Michigan where day care providers were surprised to find union dues missing from their paychecks.

Thanks to the good work of Greg Hamilton, the President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association and RLTV advisory board member and others who leapt into action against this bill which could have ushered in a state takeover of religious child care centers, the bill is dead this session.

This is the latest in a series of union efforts to force themselves into non-union workplaces by any means necessary. The Washington bill was a stealthy attack, and Greg worked many high density hours to bring this law to its knees and defeat the unions. The unions were surprised by their defeat in this bill, since they full expected to take control in state day care centers like they had done in other states, and we will be watching to see if they try to sneak the bill in another way, or to write similar legislation next year.

As labor unions continue to lose influence in other sectors of the economy due to a combination of decreased domestic manufacturing and state labor laws that already achieve many of their goals, we can expect them to continue to attempt to insert themselves in industries where they have not been invited through traditional means.

(For more information visit the Northwest Religious Liberty Association at http://www.nrla.com)

—-

Washington House of Representatives Attempts to Facilitate Union Take-Over of Religious Child Care Centers

By Michael D. Peabody, Esq. So what’s the biggest threat to religious liberty? According to J. Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, the answer is found in the strings attached to government funding of religious activity. Earlier this month, during a speech for the Jewish …

March 18, 2010 | Filed Under Current Events, Employment Law, In the News, Politics | Leave a Comment

Oregon Legislature Votes Down 1923 Ban on Teachers Wearing Religious Dress

Contents

Oregon Legislature Votes Down 1923 Ban on Teachers Wearing Religious Dress

Oregon Legislature Votes Down 1923 Ban on Teachers Wearing Religious Dress

By Michael Peabody – This month we have a couple of big stories coming out of the great Pacific Northwest. In Oregon, the legislature has passed a bill championed by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association that overturns a 87-year-old law that prohibited teachers from wearing religious dress in the classroom. It is presently sitting on governor Ted Kulongoski’s desk awaiting signature.

This was the surviving part of a package of laws that was put into place in 1923 after the KKK had convinced Oregon voters to change the state’s constitution to require all students to attend public schools, and consequently prohibit all private education, including religious education. The voters had been given the notion that public education was the only way to keep students from being taught all kinds of off-beat ideas such as racial tolerance in private schools. In order to keep the now unemployed Catholic teachers from working in the public schools, they prohibited public school teachers from wearing religious dress. At the same time, Christian teachers could wear a cross or other small items, but Jewish yarmulkes and Sikh turbans were prohibited, and teachers wearing them would not only be required to go home and change – they would lose their teaching license.

Over time, the cause of prohibiting teachers from wearing religious dress was taken up by the ACLU and other church-state separation absolutists, despite the fact that the bill had enough loopholes for Christian teachers, but prohibited other people whose faith required them to wear religious dress from entering the teaching profession.

This law was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court in the 1980s when a Sikh teacher was kicked out of the profession for wearing her religious dress even though she made it clear that she was wearing it as part of her personal religious commitment and had no intention of converting her students to her religion. Although it was purely a cultural issue, Oregon’s Sikh boys and girls in the public schools would soon learn that they could never expect to teach in the classrooms where they were learning. Neither could Orthodox Jews or members of other faiths who were required by their beliefs to wear certain types of dress.

During the early 2000s, as the Northwest Religious Liberty Association and other groups worked toward a Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA), the ACLU didn’t have a problem with the bill, which required employers to make reasonable attempts to accommodate religious employees’ holy day observance and religious garb, but they did have a problem applying this law to teachers.

Because of this exclusion, at one point, the Sikh organization SALDEF (Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund) actively called for the governor to veto the WRFA legislation unless teachers were also covered. They had experienced firsthand the effect of the educational exemption when a teacher was fired for wearing her Sikh cultural / religious dress, and wanted to make sure it was covered. The promoters of WRFA met with the Sikh community and expressed solidarity on the educational exemption, and indicated that they would be back once WRFA passed to work on clean-up legislation the next session that would fix this problem.

As promised, the next year, Oregon House Speaker Dave Hunt and other legislators influenced by a multi-faith lobby put a law on the table that would overturn this decades old exemption, and as a result of these efforts, Oregon has joined the 47 other states that will make reasonable attempts to accommodate the religious dress of teachers.

This does not mean that teachers who wear particular dress as part of their sincere religious practice can try to convert their students, after all the Establishment Clause is still in place, but they are no longer excluded from the field of teaching. Legislators had to balance the interests of protecting children from potential proselytizing while protecting the rights of teachers. I believe that the Oregon legislature struck the right balance in overturning this ban. However, we will need to be vigilant on the other end to protect the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their students.

What this bill does is recognize that the United States is a diverse country made of people of many faiths – although Americans don’t all have to believe the same thing, we do need to learn to live together in peace and should not discriminate against reasonable teachers because they have to wear certain things as part of their faith.

For previous articles on this subject see:

3 states still ban religious clothing for teachers (Associated Press)

EXCERPT: PORTLAND, Ore. — A law backed by the Ku Klux Klan nearly a century ago to keep Catholics out of public schools is still on the books in Oregon, one of the last states in the nation to prohibit teachers from wearing religious clothing in classrooms. Both Pennsylvania and Nebraska have …

California Supreme Court to Decide A Case Where Medical Rights v. Workplace Religious Freedom

Soon after issuing its opinion that gay marriage cannot be prohibited under the Constitution, the California Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling in a case where a physician declined to provide fertilization services on a lesbian (unmarried) couple, but referred them to another clinic that did provide the …

Governor signs Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Northwest Religious Liberty Association Press Release – July 21, 2009 The Stage Was Set On a sweltering Friday summer evening, and just two minutes prior to going on stage before approximately 2,000 Seventh-day Adventist Christians at the Gladstone, Oregon Campmeeting, the Honorable Representative Dave Hunt (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives for the …

Northwest Religious Liberty Association Honors Oregon Speaker Dave Hunt

Representative Dave Hunt, speaker of the Oregon House of Representatives, was awarded by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA) at the Oregon Conference Campmeeting in Gladstone on July 17, 2009 for his legislative sponsorship of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, Senate Bill 786 (SB 786) which was signed into law by …

Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signs the Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Breaking News: We have received word that Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski has signed the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786). SB 786 requires employers to make credible attempts t

March 17, 2010 | Filed Under Civil Rights, Current Events, Discrimination, Employment Law, In the News | Leave a Comment

Texas education board rejects in-depth study of First Amendment (DallasNews.com)

EXCERPT:

AUSTIN – Republicans on the State Board of Education soundly rejected a Democratic-backed proposal Thursday that would have required Texas students to be taught the reasons behind the prohibition of a state religion in the Bill of Rights.

The contentious decision in curriculum standards for U.S. government classes appeared to signal the unhappiness of several board members with court rulings that have affirmed the separation of church and state – including a longtime ban on school-sponsored prayer.

Read the full article at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/031210dnmetsboe.19ab856dd.html

March 12, 2010 | Filed Under Church and State, Current Events, Education, Free Speech, In the News | Leave a Comment

Search for:
Upcoming Events
1. Feb
  
  18
  
  Sat
  1. 11:00 am Naperville, IL – Vern Alger to speak on Religious Liberty
View Calendar »
✔ Subscribe Add to Google
RLTV Social News
Articles by Category
Recent Posts
Religious Liberty Links
Recent Comments

Pages

Dr. Michael Schluter, founder of Keep Sunday Special, debates business entrepreneurs and representatives of other faith groups on the issue of whether Europe should adopt Sunday as a uniform day of rest.

Rosas v. Corp. of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, Case No. 09-35003 (C.A. 9, Mar. 16, 2010)

Washington State Bill to Unionize Child Care Centers Dies in Committee

Upcoming Events

Feb 18 Sat

RLTV Social News

Articles by Category

Recent Posts

Religious Liberty Links

Recent Comments

Feb

18

Sat