The Sikh Coalition, a civil rights advocacy group, on Monday released a mobile application on iPhones and Android phones giving passengers who feel they’ve been racially or religiously profiled a way to speak out against screeners with the Transportation Security Administration.

The free mobile app, FlyRights, prompts disgruntled passengers with questions and allows them to quickly check the basis on which they feel they’ve been discriminated, then name the airport where the incident occurred, the airline and the flight number.

Read the full article

Photo Credit www.istockphoto.com/ Amelia Johnson

In August 2010, Noor Abdallah, a Muslim woman who worked as a hostess at Disneyland’s Grand Californian hotel complained that Disney had refused to allow her to wear her hijab, or headscarf, which she wore as a sign of modesty in front of her customers. Disney, which had been working to accommodate her, found a blue scarf that would both fit with the uniform look and accommodate her religious beliefs. The issue was resolved.

Unfortunately, many other religious employees have not been this fortunate and the incidents of religious discrimination based on dress have continued to increase as they have been forced to choose between their faith and their job.

On April 16, 2012 the California Assembly Labor and Employment Committee passed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012. Introduced on April 11 by Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada (D-Davis), the bill, designated AB 1964 after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is designed to decrease incidents of employment discrimination against employees who must wear religious dress as part of their religious commitment and adds it to other areas of protected “religious belief or observance.”

Particularly, this bill will address the concerns of Muslims and Sikhs who have been discriminated against in the workplace because of religious dress requirements, or “accommodated” in back rooms away from customers and the general public.

The code presently reads, “Religious belief or observance, as used in this section, includes, but is not limited to, observance of a Sabbath of other religious holy days or days, and reasonable time necessary for travel prior and subsequent to a religious observance.”

AB 1964 would add: “and the practice of wearing religious clothing or a religious hairstyle.”

In order to defend against these claims, which can arise based on adverse employment action, refusal to provide reasonable accommodation, or failure to hire, employers will need to be able to demonstrate an “undue hardship” as defined in California law. Under the bill, an accommodation will not be considered reasonable if it requires an employee to be segregated from customers or the general public.

AB 1964 is scheduled to be heard next in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 24.  The bill is being supported by a variety of faith groups including Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Muslims, and Sikhs. The bill also clarifies the employers’ requirement to provide reasonable accommodation by removing some of the ambiguities presently in the law.

A couple of years ago I had the privilege of testifying before the Oregon Judiciary Committee alongside the Northwest Religious Liberty Association in favor of the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act which addressed the areas of religious dress and holy day observance. That bill was signed into law and as a result peaceful people of faith in Oregon have experienced greater workplace protections and employers have benefited from the clearer guidelines.

Click here for the latest Status on AB 1964: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1964/20112012/

“The past year has marked a shift in religious liberty debates, one that previously centered on hiring rights but became focused on health care requirements. When President Obama first took office, faith-based groups were especially concerned that organizations that discriminate in hiring based on religious beliefs would become ineligible for federal funding. In 2011, the President indicated that he would not rescind an executive order on hiring rights. Just a week later, though, Health and Human Services ruled that religious groups other than churches must provide their employees contraception, triggering lawsuits and petitions. But contraception is not the only religious freedom issue faith-based groups are eyeing. The following timeline shows a number of actions the government took in the past year, setting precedents and priorities on various issues, including sexual orientation, health care, and hiring decisions.”

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/timeline-obama-religious-freedom.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=eNews&utm_term=9465269&utm_content=122402270&utm_campaign=2012

This was the case of the parochial school teacher who in addition to teaching on secular subjects also performed religious functions, Cheryl Perich, who was fired for threatening to file a lawsuit under the Americans with Disaiblities Act when she was not given her job back after returning from medical leave.  The religious employer argued that it was against its religious beliefs for a minister to sue the church, and that these things had to be handled within the church structure.

The issue presented before the Court was whether the anti-retaliation prohibition of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be constitutionally applied to a religious association’s retaliatory firing of a parochial school teacher who taught secular subjects and also performed religious functions and was designated a commissioned minister.

The Supreme Court found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar ministers from bringing lawsuits against their churches in which the ministers claim violation of employment discrimination laws. In this case, the Court found that Perich was a minister within the meaning of the ministerial exception, and therefore the First Amendment required dismissal of her employment discrimination suit against her religious employer.

The ministerial exception gives religious institutions certain rights to control employment matters without interference from the secular courts. It does not, as the Court decision points out, affect criminal, tort, or contract law. So churches cannot use it to shield themselves from liability for criminal acts, negligent behavior leading to accidents, or breach of contract.  But it does protect churches from being hauled into court for religious decisions that have been made.

Some have tried to advance the theory that Perich had not fully pursued the administrative remedies available to her in the parochial system, but that would not have changed the outcome which hinged on the threshold issue of whether the ministerial exception applied to her. If the exception applied, the Court lacked jurisdiction.

Another misconception is that the Hosanna-Tabor decision somehow establishes the ministerial exception and adds something new. In reality, Congress specifically built an exception for religious organizations into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII was enacted by Congress to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (42 U.S. C. §§ 2000e-2(a)). Under the statutory exception, religious employers could prefer members of their own faith in making their hiring decisions.

The actual ministerial exception was born in 1972, when, in McClure v. Salvation Army, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to hear a female minister’s gender discrimination claim. The court found that applying the provisions of Title VII to the employment relationship existing between a church and its ministers would therefore “cause the State to intrude upon matters of church administration and government” which would “result in an encroachment by the State into an area of religious freedom.”

The way it works is that courts in most Circuits rely upon a role-based or “primary duties test” to determine whether an employee is a minister within the exception, and whether or he she can bring suit under Title VII. Several circuits have adopted an approach that religious institutions should be able to choose who will perform certain spiritual functions. The first approach focuses on the employment relationship, while the second focuses on the right of churches to exercise their beliefs more freely.

Perich was, in many ways, the perfect “poster child” to challenge the ministerial exception. The case clearly involved a non-religious issue and for all the world, it looked like the church was looking for a way to fire her in a way that would be against public policy as applied to secular organizations and still avoid being hauled into court for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In fact, the EEOC, the ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (“AU”) rallied to Perich’s side. In its brief, AU argued that the ministerial exception did not entitle religious entities to discriminate or retaliate for reasons unrelated to religion, and that courts should determine whether an asserted religious justification for an action is pretextual.

In short, a church would therefore need to pass a two-prong test – first, it would have to demonstrate that its discriminatory rule was related to its religious beliefs; second, it would need to demonstrate that its action was not “pretextual.”

The AU brief gave some examples of what it meant to litigate on issues of discrimination that were not particularly related to a church’s doctrine. For instance, a Catholic Church could not be forced to hire a female priest, but an otherwise egalitarian church would not be permitted to fire a Sunday-school teacher when the pastor had a purely personal belief that “women should not work outside the home.”  The examples continued for several pages, permitting organizations to make discriminatory doctrinal rulings but not permitting local churches from acting in contrast to non-discriminatory denominational policies or practice.

Applying an Employment Division v. Smith style argument, AU argued that generally applicable employment laws should apply to churches unless there is a need to safeguard a constitutional right. Why they would appeal to this analysis is particularly curious. The Smith decision created a major problem for free exercise of religion by subjecting religious minorities to the rule of the majority even if it goes against the minority’s religious beliefs. (One can hope that the Court, in the near future, might see the wisdom of applying the Hosanna-Tabor analysis to individual religious liberty rights and re-establishing the Free Exercise Clause that was compromised in Smith.)

The AU brief is helpful in that it provides a concrete example of the depth to which the government and courts would need evaluate in order to determine whether church employment decisions were permissible or not.

Under the approach proposed by AU, church decisions would be open to scrutiny as to whether they were doctrinal or not, and the investigators would then need to go into the minds of the decision makers to see whether such decisions were made in good faith and not merely to achieve a favorable outcome for the institution.

As people often say, bad cases often make bad law and the Supreme Court had just such an opportunity to throw away the ministerial exception in this highly sympathetic case and effectively destroy the wall of separation of church and state by allowing the state entry into the inner workings of the church. Fortunately the Court saw the bigger issues involved and made the right decision.

However by ruling the way it did, the Supreme Court protected the right of a religious organization to select its clergy without government interference and avoided placing church doctrine under government interpretation. Civil magistrates will not be in a position where they are forced to determine which religious view, that of the clergy member or the church, is correct.

Church leaders are free to choose ministers who they believe will carry their message forward.

While most religious organizations sincerely strive to provide fair and equitable treatment to all employees, this does not mean that some religious organizations will not abuse the “ministerial exception” to make poor personnel decisions that could lead to costly litigation if they were secular organizations. But organizational decision makes should realize that they will ultimately answer to a Higher Power even if these cases may not be pursued in the civil courts.

—-

For more information on the ministerial exception and its history, I would recommend the Charleston Law Review article by Todd Cole, “The Ministerial Exception:  Resolving the Conflict between Title VII and the First Amendment.” The article is available online at http://www.charlestonlawreview.org/archive/vol4num4/Cole.pdf

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.

Under pre-existing law, employers were required to provide accommodation so long as it did not cause an “undue hardship” for the employer. However, since “undue hardship” was not clearly defined, it was generally viewed as a requirement that the “de minimis cost or burden” standard be applied.

The new City law amends sections 8-102 and 8-107 of the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”) to defines what “undue hardship” means:

“Undue hardship” shall mean “an accommodation requiring significant expense or difficulty (including a significant interference with the safe or efficient operation of the workplace or a violation of a bona fide seniority system).” Factors to be considered in determining whether the accommodation constitutes an undue economic hardship shall include, but not be limited to:

• The identifiable cost of the accommodation, including the costs of loss of productivity and the cost of retaining or hiring of employees or transferring of employees from one facility to another, in relation to the size and operating cost of the employer.
• The number of individuals who will need the particular accommodation to a sincerely held religious observance or practice, and
• For an employer with multiple facilities, the degree to which the geographic separateness or administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities will make the accommodation more difficult or expensive.

The Act also provides that employers in New York City can establish that a religious accommodation will result in an “undue hardship” by showing that it will result in the employee’s inability to perform the essential functions of his or her position.

Potential remedies for violating the law include reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and employers could be subject to a civil penalty of $125,000.

From a practical standpoint, employers should consult with human resources experts to ensure compliance by making sure that anti-discrimination policies are up to date, and job descriptions should be tailored to accurately describe portions of the job duties that involve attendance, availability, and dress / grooming requirements.

This law is of particular significance to Muslims and Sikhs who have faced an increase in discrimination since the events of 9/11, and will apply to both public and private sector employers.

###

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

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case involving whether churches can “discriminate” when making employment decisions about employees who are not clergy.

EXCERPT:

[Many religious groups] support the right of religious groups to hire and fire teachers who could be construed as “ministers” on grounds that would be otherwise discriminatory, whether due to race, gender and disability or other reasons. The case could affect hundreds of thousands of teachers and other employees in faith-based schools and organizations.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110930/NEWS01/309300086/Religious-leaders-line-up-support-Supreme-Court-case?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome

This situation allows small groups of people to have a profound impact on public attitudes and policy discourse, provided that they are well-organized, well-funded, and stay on message.

– Stephen M. Walt

Read the full article

This is Article18–RLTV’s weekly blog specifically dedicated to religious liberty issues in other countries around the world. Each week, we focus on a different nation, and the struggles facing one of its religious communities. I feel bad calling this a weekly blog when my new posts are so infrequent and rarely uploaded every week, but starting this week it will be a regular feature every seven days or so. This time our focus is once again on Pakistan, where Christians across the country continue to be persecuted, violently attacked and even discriminated against in the midst of a humanitarian disaster zone.

Earlier this year, back in January, Article18 profiled Pakistan, focusing on how the fallout from Governor Taseer’s assassination disrupted efforts to eliminate discriminatory blasphemy laws. Since then little has improved for a nation still struggling to convince the world that it is not a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom designates Pakistan as one of fourteen “countries of particular concern” in regard to religious liberty violations. This is not the first time we have covered one of these fourteen violators and it surely won’t be the last. Each of the countries are either in Africa or Asia, but share little else in common and include a variety of religions and types of government.

Last year’s devastating floods in Pakistan were shocking to witness. The tragedy of the disaster was matched only by the tragedy of the response, from both Pakistan and the international community. It now appears that another crisis is occurring in the flood-affected Punjab region. Compass Direct News reports that “many Christians living in the southern belt of Pakistan’s Punjab Province who lost their houses in last year’s floods remain homeless despite a plan by the Punjab government to allocate land to residents in the area.” The housing problem is disproportionately affecting Christians and the provincial government, according to local resident Hameed Masih, “has not set a quota for granting of land to members of minority communities left homeless by the devastating floods.”

“Several people were allotted land last month, but so far no minority member has been given land,” Masih remarked. “Christians in this area are not rich people. They lost their houses and lands in the floods and should have been given a 5 percent quota in the scheme. Flood victims could have been easily accommodated, but the quota system has not been followed, and thus no minority member has been allotted land.”

In a fascinating report from the Baptist Press, that detailed the dramatic increase in religious tension around the world, Pakistan was one of ten countries identified as very high in hostilities involving religion. The other nine were Iraq, India, Afghanistan, Somalia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Israel and Egypt. There is hope among some that the Washington’s recently approved religious liberty envoy to the region could help improve relations in Pakistan’s interfaith community, but such results could take a very long time.      

At the very least there is a serious lack of communication or break down of procedure in Pakistan, but more likely it seems there is a problem in which Christians there continue to face discrimination not just in how they worship but in all aspects of their lives.

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Norway — Personal Reflections on the Origin of a Tragedy

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Exactly a decade later, almost to the day, I was traveling through Palestine with a friend from college. We were visiting Beit She’an, a Roman-era settlement, as well as Jericho and the banks of the Jordan River. As to be expected in the Holy Land, even when things are outwardly peaceful, a tension hangs in the air nearly everywhere you go. Military checkpoints had 18-year old female Israeli soldiers with sub-machine guns eye us suspiciously when we crossed into new territory. I had noticed helicopters hovering above our taxi while we were driving, but didn’t think anything of it. Then we were suddenly escorted to the side of the freeway by unmarked cars and quickly had more sub-machine guns aimed at our car by what appeared to be policemen, speaking rapidly to our driver while we sat mesmerized and terrified. As quickly as they came, they left, satisfied we posed no danger. Our driver told us they were looking for two suicide bombers in an identical van to ours on the same road at the same time. Our shock only increased when we read the newspaper the next day and saw that the suspects were in fact apprehended that day–same model of taxi-van, same freeway, same afternoon.

I have experienced the effects of terrorism in two countries, albeit not directly and fortunately not in any way that harmed me or my loved ones and for that I am thankful. One was the result of violent criminals who were White, staunchly Catholic, and Irish. The other was planned by Arab Muslims in the Middle East. For both, religion was an important motivation, but not the sole or even primary reason for their terrorism.

Like most terrorist acts, the motivation came out of a mix of socioeconomic and/or ethno-religious reasoning and such people rarely represent their community at large. If you have read this blog before, even just a couple entries, you know that we have profiled religiously motivated violence and terrorism in several countries and the aggressors are a colorful bunch–Hindus in India, communists in Cuba and China, Buddhist authorities in Thailand, as well as the aforementioned Muslims and Christians.

The horrific attack that occurred in Norway last week might be the worst terrorist attack to hit Europe in the post-9/11 era. The savage way that the acts were committed and the tragedy of so many youth being targeted makes the incident hard to comprehend. It was an alarming story for me to hear as I had camped in a similar location near Oslo some years ago, very close to where the killings took place. Many were quick to point out that the suspect is a Christian fundamentalist, an anti-Muslim terrorist, eager to erase Norway’s non-indigenous populations. There have been those on the right who are quick to ignore or brush this fact away and those on the left who see this as a way to further demonize religion, Christianity in particular.

Too many people in the news quickly blamed Muslims for the attack, speaking without any credible information in the hours before we knew the attacker’s name or motivation, leading to a CNN article on why we can’t blame the Muslims in such a situation without knowing all the information. The fact of the matter is that the demon of terrorism is one that will practice whatever religion it must to satisfy its craving for violence. Terrorism knows no religion that it can’t corrupt. Violence can find a home in any religion, any belief system, be it Muslim, Christian, or Sikh and it is not partial to any one in particular, despite the ramblings in the media. I have even had several good discussions with RLTV contributor Joshua Crouch this year about how violence and terrorism find just as comfortable a home in the lack of a religious structure, as we have seen this year in Laos, China, North Korea, and Cuba.     

As candidates for president openly admit their refusal to appoint a Muslim in their hypothetical cabinet, let us remember that the world’s one billion Muslims should not be judged on the actions of criminals, just as Christians would not want to be judged by the actions of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.

Khalid Latif in that same article gave his readers a suggested course of action, one we often forget about in this chaotic world, “Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Norway. May God make things easy for them and grant us all the strength and courage to stand up against those who preach intolerance and hatred, even if they look like us, align politically with us, or practice the same religion we practice.”

Article18 is a weekly blog written by Martin Surridge, Associate Editor of Religious Liberty TV. Article18 logo and other artwork created by Bradley Kenyon.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

Don’t forget to check out other recent Article18 entries.

Article18: Uzbekistan — Recent Incidents of Violence Against Christians Alarm Religious Minorities

Article18: Cuba — Three Protestant Pastors Interrogated; Roman Catholic Church in Havana Helps Free 126 Prisoners of Conscience

Article18: Saudi Arabia — Prominent Saudi Cleric Hopes Women Who Violate Driving Ban Incur Wrath of God and Die

Article18: Mexico — Confirmed Presence of Major Islamic Terrorist Group Near U.S. Border; Former Killer Preaches to Violent Gangsters

Article18: Laos — Four Christian Women Raped and Executed by Laotian Military Along Vietnam Border

Read the full article

“I think it is an infringement and abuse of our freedom of religion, and I don’t agree with what’s happening here because this isn’t an innocent mosque,” Cain told reporters after speaking to a crowd of hundreds on the Murfreesboro Public Square. “This is another way to sneak Shariah law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that,” Cain said.

Cain previously said that he would not hire a Muslim to serve in his administration if he is elected president.

Read the full article below

http://www.dnj.com/article/20110715/NEWS01/110715005/Cain-opposes-Murfreesboro-mosque-project

Masudur Rahman, who is also an adjunct instructor of Arabic at the University of Memphis, said by phone from the terminal at Memphis International Airport that he and another imam had already been allowed to board their Delta Connection flight to Charlotte, North Carolina before they were asked to get off the plane.

The aircraft pulled away from the gate, but the pilot then announced the plane must return, Rahman said. When it did, the imams were asked to go back to the boarding gate where Rahman said they were told the pilot was refusing to accept them because some other passengers could be uncomfortable.

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.

Three  former employees Silvia Spencer, Ted Youngberg, and Vicki Hulse had had filed suit against the well-known humanitarian organization in 2007, claiming they had been victims of religious discrimination when they were fired because they did not agree with the religious beliefs of the organization. When hired, they had acknowledged their agreement and compliance with World Vision’s Statement of Faith, Core Values, and Mission Statement, but they later denied the diety of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit ruled that despite the fact that secular organizations could provide the same or similar services, World Vision is a religious organization in practice and in its Articles of Incorporation, and provides Christian religious and missionary services.  The court ruled that World Vision is free to continue faith-based hiring.

In a statement, World Vision applauded the court’s decision, “Our Christian faith has been the foundation of our work since the organization was established in 1950, and our hiring policy is vital to the integrity of our mission to serve the poor as followers of Jesus Christ. . . . World Vision will continue to vigorously defend our organization’s freedom to hire employees who share our faith, as do other religious organizations, whether Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, or Christian.”

World Vision is known for its child sponsorship program which provides donors the opportunity to make monthly donations toward the education of children in impoverished countries for $1 a day.  The organization is purported to serve over 100 million children in 100 countries around the world. For more information, visit http://www.worldvision.org

###

• The 9th Circuit’s Ruling in Sylvia Spencer v. World Vision Inc. is available here.  In this reviewer’s opinion, the concurring opinion of Judge Andrew Kleinfeld beginning at p. 12259, provides an excellent primer on how Title VII applies to religious organizations.