http://oregonfaithreport.com/2012/01/ruling-on-ministers-what-the-supreme-court-said-and-did-not-say/

Judge Scott M. Matheson wrote on behalf of the unanimous court, “Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses has resulted in concrete problems in Okalahoma.” (Awad v. Ziriax).

Larson test a Gateway to Addressing Laws that Discriminate Between Religions

The 10^th Circuit also applied the Larson test as a gateway to the Lemon test. While the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) applied to “laws affording uniform benefit to all religions, and not to provisions…that discriminate among religions,”  in Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 255 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that if a law discriminated between religions, it could survive only if it is “closely fitted to the furtherance of any compelling interest asserted.”

In the case of California Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245 (10^th Cir. 2008), the 10^th Circuit had described Larson, “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion …. The State may not adopt programs or practices…which aid or oppose any religion….. This prohibition is absolute.” Larson, 456 U.S. at 246.

Proponents of the Oklahoma amendment had argued that Larson was no longer good law because it is used infrequently, but the 10^th Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court had never overturned it, and stated that this rarity “likely reflects that legislatures seldom pass laws that make ‘explicit and deliberate distinctions between different religious organizations’ as contemplated in Larson.”

In fact, the Supreme Court had referenced the rarity of this type of case in Church of the Lukimi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. City of Hileah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)(“The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions.”)

The Larson case facts were mild compared to the facts of  Oklahoma amendment case. In the Larson case, a Minnesota statute imposed certain registration and reporting requirements on religious organizations that solicited more than 50 percent of their funds from non-members. No specific religious group was identified. But the Oklahoma statute specifically targeted Islam, and was defined in these terms: “Sharia Law is Islamic Law. It is based on two principle sources, the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed.” (SQ 755).

The Oklahoma amendment further instructed the courts to “uphold and adhere to … if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions.” The law did not prohibit Oklahoma courts from upholding laws of any other religion. The Oklahoma amendment also included language that Oklahoma “courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law.”

Because of the lack of Sharia law in Oklahoma, the Court ruled that the harm that the amendment would remedy was “speculative at best and cannot support a compelling interest.” Further, the court said that there was no way to tell whether the amendment would solve any Sharia law problem since “one cannot try on a glove to see if it fits when the glove is missing.”

The Court further found that Muneer Awad, a Muslim who had filed the case, would suffer irreparable injury without the injunction. The court applied on the principle that “[w]hen an alleged constitutional right is involved, most courts hold that no further showing of irreparable injury is necessary.” Kikumara v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950. The 10^th Circuit also noted that although states can legislate in certain areas (including ballot initiatives), “these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”

The full decision is available here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-6273.pdf

CONCLUSION: Certainly, if Islamic law had been imposed, it would be a violation of the Establishment Clause. But without that even being at issue, the Amendment became an excuse to marginalize a religious group.

Dec. 14, 2011 Silver Spring, Maryland, United States

Bettina Krause/PARL/ANN

Religious liberty leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church this week met the Hungarian ambassador to the United States in an effort to help officials from that country better understand the potential effects of a looming deregistration of churches.

The Law of Churches, set for implementation on January 1, would deregister all but 14 religious denominations in Hungary, including the Adventist Church. It could also potentially affect the church’s theological seminary.

Hungarian Ambassador to the United States, Gyorgy Szapary, met with officials from the Adventist Church’s Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department on December 12 at the Hungarian embassy in Washington, D.C. While the law is still set for implementation, Adventist representatives later described the meeting as “cordial” and “productive.”

“We expressed our deep concerns to Ambassador Szapary about Hungary’s recently passed ‘Law on Churches’ and its impact, not just on the Adventist Church, but on many other minority religions as well,” said Dwayne Leslie, the Adventist Church’s director of legislative affairs. Leslie represented the Adventist Church at the meeting along with Ganoune Diop, the church’s representative to the United Nations.

Diop and Leslie provided the ambassador with an overview of the international denomination and the history and scope of the Adventist presence in Hungary. They also explained the potential impact on the Adventist Theological Seminary in Pécel, near Budapest, which serves 66 students.

Adventist Education officials have previously said the seminary is key for providing theological and counseling education in the Hungarian language and cultural context. “Although it’s small, the seminary meets the needs of the church in Hungary for pastors and theologians, as well as for life style and family life counselors,” said Mike Lekic, an associate Education director for the Adventist Church.

Following Monday’s meeting, Diop said the ambassador was gracious and receptive to the issues presented by the Adventist Church. “The meeting provided an excellent opportunity for dialogue — we stated our concerns clearly, and heard the perspective of the Hungarian government,” he said.

When the new law, voted in July, goes into effect next month, it will strip all but 14 “historic” religions of their legal status. Minority religions must then apply to the Hungarian parliament for re-registration.

Since the legislation was passed, Hungary has maintained that the move was not “anti-religion,” but rather a legislative means to root out fraudulent organizations operating behind the protection of religion.

Religious liberty advocates worldwide, however, have decried the law, calling it unnecessary state interference with religion and a setback for human rights in Hungary. More than 300 groups are set to lose their registration, including Hungary’s Methodists, Unitarians, a number of Islamic communities, and many smaller Protestant and evangelical churches.

In November, Diop and John Graz, PARL director for the Adventist world church, met in New York with Hungary’s ambassador to the United Nations to express the church’s concerns about the potential plight not just of Adventists, but of other religious groups in Hungary that will be affected by the new law.

Leslie and Diop said the Public Affairs and Religious Liberty department will continue to monitor the situation in Hungary and will provide any assistance requested by local church leaders.

The Attorney General announced the launch of the Religious Rights Initiative in remarks before the Anti-Defamation League.

“Our state’s rich history of religious diversity is founded on our nation’s Bill of Rights and enshrined by laws that protect New Yorkers’ right to freely practice their faith,” Attorney General Schneiderman said. “The Religious Rights Initiative will focus on violations of this fundamental freedom, ensure that religious rights are protected, and work with communities throughout the state to foster and promote religious tolerance.”

The Religious Rights Initiative will lead a public education and outreach campaign to help inform communities around the state about the requirements of the state’s anti-discrimination laws. The campaign will also advance the Civil Rights Bureau’s enforcement efforts, combat religious discrimination through litigation and advocacy, and promote the process for filing religious discrimination complaints.

As part of the Initiative, the Attorney General’s office will release a series of “Know Your Rights” publications to outline strategies to both address and prevent religious discrimination in a variety of settings and circumstances. The first publication, “Religious Rights in the Workplace,” outlines the practical application of federal and state laws that protect religious freedom and prohibit religious discrimination. A resource for employees and employers, the pamphlet provides guidance concerning requests for religious accommodation in the workplace for days of religious observance, among other issues.

With the number of religious discrimination claims filed with the federal government having more than doubled since 1997, this new initiative reflects Attorney General Schneiderman’s commitment to religious freedom and fulfills his pledge to combat and prevent religious discrimination.

New Yorkers are encouraged to visit the Religious Rights Initiative website for more information, or to report a potential violation at http://www.ag.ny.gov/religiousrights. Violations may also be reported by contacting the Religious Rights Initiative in the Civil Rights Bureau at ( 212 ) 416-8250 or ( 800 ) 771-7755.

The Religious Rights Initiative is being handled by Assistant Attorney General Kayla Gassmann and Director of Community Affairs and Engagement for Religious Rights Alyson Spindell under the supervision of Spencer Freedman, Director of the Religious Rights Initiative and Chief Counsel for Civil Rights, and Civil Rights Bureau Chief Kristen Clarke.

Ron Meier, New York Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, said: “We welcome Attorney General Schneiderman’s commitment to safeguarding the religious liberty of all New Yorkers. His new ‘Religious Rights Initiative’ is important and timely. We applaud his leadership in this area and look forward to working closely with him on this new effort.”

Richard E. Barnes, Executive Director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said: “As the representatives of the largest religious denomination in the state, issues of religious liberty and discrimination have always been in the forefront of our concerns, both as they relate to threats against individuals and institutions. Such threats have caused the Bishops of the United States to redouble their efforts in examining laws and regulations that support and foster such discrimination, and public policies that threaten religious liberty. We are grateful that Attorney General Schneiderman has undertaken this effort of enormous concern to all those who cherish the rights granted to Americans by our Constitution.”

Reverend A.R. Bernard, Senior Pastor of the Christian Cultural Center, said: “Our country is founded on certain freedoms, and the right to practice our faith is one we must protect. Attorney General Schneiderman’s Religious Rights Initiative will be a critical part of the work to educate communities, prevent discrimination, and promote understanding. I support the Attorney General in his effort against religious discrimination.”

Rev. Chloe Breyer, Executive Director of the Interfaith Center of New York, said: “This is a welcome and timely initiative. New Yorkers of so many faiths and traditions give so much to our state. The time has come for their rights to be respected.”

Dr. Lenny Caro, President & CEO for the Bronx Chamber of Commerce, said: “We commend Attorney General Schneiderman for his commitment to this issue. New York State is a melting pot of a multitude of religions. The Religious Rights Initiative will provide businesses and employees with the guidance needed to ensure that religious rights are respected in the workplace. This project is a crucial resource.”

Safia Hussain, President of the Muslim Bar Association of New York, said: “The protection of religious rights is a critical issue for the Muslim community in New York. Although Muslims are approximately two percent of the American population, anti-Muslim bias complaints account for twenty-five percent of the total number of complaints received by the EEOC in recent years. Muslim children remain the unfortunate target of bullying at school, and campaigns against the establishment of mosques continue to attack the rights of Muslims to freely practice their faith.”

Sapreet Kaur, Executive Director of the Sikh Coalition, said: “We wholeheartedly welcome the launch of Religious Rights Initiative. Sikh New Yorkers, like members of many faith communities, face many challenges to the full realization of their rights under our state and federal laws. Attorney General Schneiderman is to be commended for bringing focus and attention to these issues.”

Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said: “The right of religious freedom is fundamental, and it is therefore important for the Attorney General’s office to help the public understand the scope of what is often a complex issue.”

Todd McFarland, Associate General Counsel of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, said: “The Seventh-day Adventist Church applauds the New York Attorney General’s initiative being led by the Civil Rights Bureau. Religious freedom is our first freedom and is as important and relevant in today’s religiously pluralistic society as it was to our founding fathers. We look forward to assisting the Bureau in any way we can.”

Michael S. Miller, Executive Vice President and CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, said: “Attorney General Schneiderman is creating a ’311′ to help people learn more about their religious rights in New York and a ’911′ hotline for New Yorkers denied appropriate religious accommodations in the workplace and other venues. We commend Attorney General Schneiderman on this initiative and his ongoing efforts to protect the religious rights of all New Yorkers.”

Zead Ramadan, President, Board of Directors of the Council on American Islamic Relations-NY, said: “We applaud the Attorney General for his bold new initiative to combat religious discrimination in New York State. As the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights group, dedicated to empowering the Muslim community, we look forward to working toward our common goals of ensuring religious freedom and preventing discrimination.”

http://media-newswire.com/release_1162315.html

For more: http://www.katc.com/mobile/news/court-affirms-prisoner-religious-right

Read the full article:

http://global.christianpost.com/news/san-francisco-court-protects-religious-freedoms-of-christian-homeless-shelter-56943/

http://www.microfinancemonitor.com/2011/09/30/germany-eu-demand-iran-to-free-pastor-nadarkhani/

Read more at:

http://aclj.org/iran/iran-upholds-christian-pastor-apostasy-conviction-execution-wednesday

Homeowners Chuck and Stephanie Fromm, of San Juan Capistrano, were fined $300 earlier this month for holding what city officials called “a regular gathering of more than three people”.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/09/20/oc-couple-threatened-with-500-per-meeting-fines-for-home-bible-study/

The summer camp where children of the Norwegian Labor Party went for soccer, swimming, political debates and lectures “sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth,” Beck said in his national radio broadcast.

Read the full article

Read the full article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-sues-on-behalf-of-muslim-teacher-triggering-debate/2010/07/28/ABfSPtEB_story.html

Currently there are two cases in the 2^nd Circuit which are challenging the constitutionality of Section 3 of DOMA. One case is from New York (Windsor v. U.S.) and the other is from Connecticut (Pederson v. OPM). It is important to note that gay marriage is legal in Connecticut and is recognized, but not performed, in New York. The DOJ has defended DOMA in jurisdictions where the courts have decided that government only needs to have a rational basis justification in order to enact laws that discriminate against homosexuals. In short, a rational basis justification means that the government only needs to formulate a plausibly reasonable justification for a particular. Most laws are held constitutional under this standard. These cases are different, however, because the 2^nd Circuit has made no decision on whether homosexuals are a protected group, which would require some heightened scrutiny on the part of the Court in judging whether discriminatory laws are permissible against gays. These cases would require the DOJ to formulate their own beliefs about what standard that should be used when it is found that a law discriminates against homosexuals, whether to use rational basis, as some jurisdictions have, or to use heightened scrutiny. Heightened scrutiny has been defined by the Court as “a tenable justification describ[ing] actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact differently grounded.” United States v. Virginia , 518 U.S. 515, 535-36 (1996). “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation.” Id. at 533.  Based on its analysis, the DOJ believes that laws that discriminate against homosexuals should receive heightened scrutiny.

The DOJ came to this conclusion after its own analysis of the question, based on the standard for heightened scrutiny provided by the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court has made no definitively ruling on what level of scrutiny should be accorded laws pertaining to homosexuals, the DOJ believes that heightened scrutiny is the right answer. There are four questions that must be considered for heightened scrutiny to apply: (1) whether the group in question has suffered a history of discrimination; (2) whether individuals “exhibit obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group”; (3) whether the group is a minority or is politically powerless; and (4) whether the characteristics distinguishing the group have little relation to legitimate policy objectives or to an individual’s “ability to perform or contribute to society.” See Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 602-03 (1987); City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 441-42 (1985) (quoted from Attorney General Eric Holder’s letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner). The DOJ believes that homosexuals fit all these criteria. First, homosexuals certainly have suffered a history of discrimination. Second, the DOJ admits that there are no visible characteristics, but it cites social science research that supports the finding that homosexuality is immutable and cites to the recent debate on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell to support the proposition that the Executive Branch believes that people should not have to hide their sexual orientation. Third, the Executive Branch believes that homosexuals are more or less politically powerless despite some of the gains that gay rights activists have made lately. As a comparable example, the DOJ cites to the fact that women were deemed politically powerless after the passing of the 19^th Amendment and Title VII. Finally, the government supports the proposition that being gay does inhibit anyone’s ability to contribute to society.

In light of these factors, the DOJ feels that they can no longer defend DOMA as it applies to the states that legally recognize gay marriage. The DOJ will continue to defend DOMA in cases that apply to the Federal government. It is clear that the Obama administration is construing this as a federalism issue, where the states have the right to determine what a marriage is without the interference of the federal government. However, this is a victory for gay rights activists, as the Executive Branch has essentially said that it will stay out of the fray at the state level for now. Despite all this, there are still no definitive answers to the question of whether homosexuals have a right to civil secular marriage (or even at what level of scrutiny laws against them should be judged). That answer will probably have to wait until the Supreme Court decides the matter in the future.

Jason Hines is an attorney and doctoral candidate at the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

But, following the latest tragic church attack in Alexandria which claimed 23 lives, many feel the current daily protests by Coptic youth could represent a new phenomenon. Thousands of the younger generation have marched in protest in Alexandria and in Cairo, among other major cities. They’ve brandished religious symbols, chanted slogans, called for more religious freedom and clashed with the police.

Their protests were widely reported by national and foreign media and were broadly seen as a natural reaction to the unprecedented attacks targeting the Coptic community. And sympathetic Egyptian Muslims have organised rallies expressing their condolences, condemning the attack. But some analysts believe the anger shown by Coptic youth represents a deeper problem – a new generation who feel increasingly marginalised and discriminated against, exhibiting a collective sentiment that their religious believes have come under attack.

Read the full article

2010 has been an interesting year in the area of church-state relations, both at home and abroad. While we cannot cover every event of magnitude that took place this year in this forum, we will touch on some of the more important events have taken place over the last 365 days.

American Events

In March, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance.  The case of Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District, 05-17257, was the next round in the fight of Michael Newdow against the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, The Eastern District of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the reference to God in the pledge was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling on the technical issue of standing in 2004. The present case was argued in 2007. In siding with the school district, the Court found that the reference to God in the pledge was recognition of the religious history of the nation and was not an affirmation of God Himself. Furthermore, the Court found that the pledge was voluntary and students were allowed to opt out of the recitation for religious reasons.

Islamophobia once again became a popular buzzword in the months leading up to the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Much of the furor revolved around the proposed Park51, more popularly known as the “Ground Zero Mosque” in New York City. The popular name of the proposed structure is exceedingly ironic, considering the fact that the structure is not a mosque and not within view of Ground Zero. The debate over Park51 was just the tip of the iceberg, as debates about proposed mosques erupted in Tennessee, California, and Wisconsin. The debate culminated over the treatment of Muslims culminated in the proposed Qur’an burning by Pastor Terry Jones on the anniversary of 9/11. Many politicians and religious groups of all stripes objected to the Qur’an burning, and Pastor Jones eventually canceled the event.

On August 4, the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on Prop 8 and the issue of gay marriage in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 violated the both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Those on the defense who supported Prop 8 presented a fairly weak case, presenting only two witnesses, both of whom were ineffectual. Judge Walker was almost given no choice in ruling for the plaintiffs. However, all admit that this is just the first skirmish in an issue that may very well end up in the Supreme Court.

Church-state issues were briefly a part of the midterm elections, thanks to Christine O’Donnell. The Delaware Tea Party Candidate, in a debate with her Democratic opponent Chris Coons, questioned the presence of the concept of separation of church and state in the Constitution. She continued to press the issue even after Coons explained to her that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and Supreme Court cases had established the concept as a Constitutional principle. Many conservatives leapt to her defense, arguing that she was technically correct, and that she was misunderstood.

International Events

Throughout this year, France has been embroiled in a controversy regarding banning burqas and other forms of Islamic face coverings. The ban passed the lower house of the French Parliament in July, and passed the Senate in September. Naturally, Muslims in France have protested this law, citing the fact that their religious freedom is being violated. The last legal hurdle was cleared in October when France’s highest court ruled that the law was constitutional. The Court found that because the law did not restrain the use of burqas during worship, there was no violation of religious freedom.

In July, Argentina became the first Latin American country to allow gay marriage. The President of Argentina, Fernandez de Kirchner, supported this legislation, despite the strenuous objection of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church organized several protests in the days leading up to the vote. While the Kirchners (her husband is the former president) have been accused of supporting this legislation because of its personal political benefits, they and others have argued that the time for this law has come. Argentina has shifted to more politically liberal mores and therefore this legislation reflects the changed sensibilities of Argentineans.

Late this year, a truly historic piece of legislation passed in Peru. The legislature in Peru passed legislation that will guarantee religious freedom for all citizens, codifying a principle that was already present in Peru’s Constitution. The law protects both public and private expressions of religion, unless the exercise of that right infringes on the rights of others or causes a public disturbance. Furthermore, the law outlaws any type of discrimination against anyone on the basis of religion and establishes religious equality, providing these benefits to all citizens, regardless of their religious preference.

This year has seen an interesting shift in the status of religious liberty around the world. Nations that have largely been seen as the stalwarts of religious freedom, such as the United States and countries in Europe, have taken some steps to restrict the religious freedom of religious minorities and the irreligious, with varying amounts of success. However, countries that have historically been described as unwelcoming to religious minorities, such as countries in Latin America, have taken steps to extend freedoms to those less fortunate.

###

Jason Hines is an attorney and doctoral candidate at the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

[District spokesperson Elaine] Naleski says some students were offended at how others were wearing the religious symbol, but the ACLU disagrees with that reasoning. “The First Amendment protects the right of students to express their faith by wearing crosses, rosaries, or other religious symbols without interference from school officials. Our Constitution protects the right to individual religious liberty and the ACLU is here to support everyone who chooses to exercise that right,” said Mark Silverstein, the ACLU Legal Director, in a statement sent out to the media.

Read the full article

Religious leaders – Muslim, Jewish, and Christian – met in Washington, DC, on Tuesday [September 7] to denounce anti-Muslim bigotry. More than 30 religious leaders [were] in one room with one aim: to stop a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment that has already had violent consequences.

There was the attack on a Muslim taxi driver in New York city; an arson attack on a mosque under construction in Tennessee; Florida Pastor Terry Jones’ plans to burn copies of the Quran, which prompted a wave of angry protests in Afghanistan and Indonesia and, of course, protests against the building of an Islamic cultural centre – including a mosque – near Ground Zero in New York.

In Washington, the interfaith delegates also talked about the anti-Muslim backlash being a wedge issue in the forthcoming elections – particularly fears about the weak economy and high unemployment whipped up by extremists.

Dr Sayyid M Syeed of the Islamic Society of North America said: “Together we have said that we have a stake in this country. We have worked together and built trust, confidence understanding and goodwill. We will not let these fringe groups go ahead and destroy that.”

Read the full article

1. Liberty and tolerance: Our checkered history with religious equality
2. Published: Friday, September 10, 2010, 9:00 AM

Here is an excerpt from a great article by Willamette Law Professor Steven K. Green published on OregonLive.com on September 10, 2010.

Liberty and tolerance: Our checkered history with religious equality

Published: Friday, September 10, 2010, 9:00 AM

By Steven K. Green

This seems like a good time for a refresher on an important American value: religious equality. Ramadan is ending, the Jewish holy days are upon us, and many Americans are apparently uncomfortable about the nation’s growing religious pluralism. Only a hermit would be unaware of recent religious tensions involving America’s Islamic community: the controversy over the proposed Muslim community center in New York; the slashing of a New York Muslim cabdriver after he identified his religious faith; the threatened burning of the Quran by a Florida church; and opposition to mosque construction in Tennessee, California and elsewhere.

….

What does this history instruct about recent events? How do we transition from merely tolerating our nation’s 6 million Muslim citizens to affording them the benefits of religious equality? It will require a change in attitudes among the non-Muslim majority, which will remain elusive so long as Americans equate Islam with terrorism. Media coverage of violence by Muslim terrorists creates lasting impressions, but to condemn nearly 1 billion Muslims for the actions of several thousand is like condemning the Catholic Church for past actions by the Irish Republican Army. Demagogues who kill in the name of God are not unique to any faith.

We must renew our commitment to the value of religious equality, not simply toleration. We must demonstrate to Islamic extremists that we can distinguish between faith and violent acts, that our commitment to religious equality is more than platitudes chiseled into the Jefferson Memorial. Our checkered history with this issue has taught us that we cannot afford to slip backward.

Read the full article at http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/09/liberty_and_tolerance_our_chec.html