Lawsuits┬áfor and against using the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are being heard in New Jersey as one family claims the practice discriminates against students with non-religious beliefs, and another student argues that she has the right to recognize that her rights as an American come from God.
Learn more in this video from foxnews.com
Although the Supreme Court decided in 1961 that states could not have any sort of ‘religious test’ in order for a person to hold public office, seven states still have language in their constitutions that require a belief in God for anyone wanting to hold public office, be a juror, or even a witness.
Atheists argue that while the Supreme Court decision would prevent these articles from being upheld, their existence is still offensive to non-believers. Says Todd Stiefel, the chairman of the Openly Secular coalition:
“If it was on the books that Jews couldn’t hold public office, or that African-Americans or women couldn’t vote, that would be a no-brainer.”
For more on the drive to remove the outdated language, visit nytimes.com
A pair of bills filed in the Ohio House would allow for religious expression anywhere or at any time secular expression is allowed in school, as well as allowing students to use religion, without penalty, when completing homework or other assignments. Permission for religious groups to meet and promote their events on school property would also be allowed if the two bills pass.
Many democrats do not believe in providing duplicate protections that mirror those already represented in federal law, but both bills have passed out of committee despite those reservations.
Should these extra protections be added or is there cause for concern? Read more at dispatch.com
Youth groups are valued institutions providing opportunities for American children to be exposed to other children and adult role models who have differing backgrounds and beliefs. As such, federal and state governments have encouraged the existence and expansion of youth groups through grants and tax privileges that have allowed these organizations to flourish with the taxpayersÔÇÖ support.
Unfortunately, some of these youth groups have discriminatory policies that prohibit certain children or adults from participating in or leading youth group activities because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious views. The Boy Scouts of America in particular, prohibit participation by children or adults, who are nonreligious. Previously, the organization also banned LGBT children from participating in the Boy Scouts, but this policy was changed following public upheaval and threats from several state legislatures to end the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the organization. The California State Senate has already passed such a bill,84 and similar bills may be introduced and passed in other states.
Under certain criteria, and despite state anti-discrimination laws, a private organization has a right to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association.85 However, private organizations that receive public funds or enjoy a special tax status should not be able to uniformly ban the membership of certain sexual or religious minorities.
Taxpayers should not be forced to support private organizations that explicitly discriminate because of their religious views, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Congress and state legislatures should create laws that exclude these discriminatory private groups from receiving government grants and from enjoying beneficial tax statuses. Private organizations wishing to enforce certain requirements on their membership can continue to do so without government interference while ensuring that taxpayers are not supporting groups that are discriminatory.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION:┬áYouth groups receiving government grants and/or preferential tax status must be prepared to represent all citizens and not discriminate on the basis of participantsÔÇÖ religious affiliation or sexual orientation.
Our government has a long history of subsidizing the efforts of organizations providing social services. Historically the same laws and regulations applied to both secular and religious groups regarding how government funds were utilized and the hiring and firing practices for such programs. Unfortunately, changes in federal policy under President George W. Bush allowed federally funded organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring practices. Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts makes it unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or fire any individual because of such individualÔÇÖs religion. Yet we do not hold salaries paid from government coffers to the same standard.
Religious and secular organizations providing social services to needy Americans should not be relieved of the same non-discrimination policies required of every other federal contractor. Religious organizations have a right to promote their beliefs, and to ask their followers to live lives based on these beliefs. However, when religious organizations request money from the federal or state governments to provide publically accessible social services, they must agree to abide by certain regulations prohibiting discrimination against the very taxpayers who fund such activities. They are not required to apply for or accept these funds if they believe their religious rights will be compromised.
These principles extend to employment protections for LGBT Americans. In 29 states it is currently legal for an employee to be fired solely for their sexual orientation. Every single one of the 21 states with laws protecting employees contains an exemption for religiously affiliated nonprofits. Houses of worship are protected by the Constitution and do not require a legislative carve out, while hospitals and schools should be held to the same equality standards as other employers. No other class of citizens protected by anti-discrimination legislation is subject to such an exemption. Discrimination in hiring and firing on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation is wrong no matter the motivation and laws that put in place exemptions set a dangerous precedent that suggest religion is a valid justification for discrimination.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Non-discriminatory hiring practices should be required of any federal or state contractor accepting government funds and laws protecting employees from discrimination should not contain any religious exemptions.
The distinction between civil and religious marriage contracts solve many of the problems raised by opponents of same-sex marriage concerned for their religious freedom rights. To receive federal and state benefits assigned to married couples, a civil marriage must be obtained. It is a contract entered into by two parties which is legally recognized by the government. The government employees who issue and certify these licenses are representatives of the state and must comply with all public laws, including anti-discrimination laws.
Marriage also carries religious significance for many Americans, and they enter into a religious marriage as well, regulated and officiated by their own faith leaders and not legally recognizable by the government. The requirements to obtain a religious marriage are set by each religious community.
The distinction between civil and religious marriage resolves the debate on same-sex marriage because the government cannot endorse a particular religious belief, such as marriage should be between a man and a woman; and the government cannot force a house of worship to grant or perform a religious marriage, as a violation of their Free Exercise rights.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights to civil marriage as opposite sex couples. Laws prohibiting this are religiously motivated discrimination which is improper and should be overturned.
Freedom of religion, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression are at the heart of international human rights agreements, just as they are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution. All persons deserve to be able to freely select their beliefs, to practice their religion or lack thereof as they choose so long as no harm is done to others, and to engage in public discussion and debate on religion. The U.S. government has both a moral and a legal duty to defend and protect these rights around the world.
U.S. diplomatic staff can and should work with secular non-governmental organizations (NGOs) just as they work with religious NGOs when abroad. NGOs can often help communicate with people on the ground in foreign countries ÔÇô including persecuted dissenters, their families, friends, and legal experts. An active network of secular NGOs is committed to protecting freedom of conscience and speech. Such NGOs include the Secular Coalition for America, the Center for Inquiry, International Humanist and Ethical Union, and the American Humanist Association. These organizations often work with religious groups to achieve common goals.
The U.S. government is the largest single financial supporter of the UN, contributing roughly one quarter of its budget. Unfortunately, many of the UNÔÇÖs key human rights enforcement mechanisms lack funding. As elected officials of a government that supports the UN, U.S. lawmakers must help ensure effective implementation of programs that promote freedom of belief, religion, and expression.
POLICY RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. government should apply political pressure whenever possible to countries violating their international human rights obligations
On behalf of four Colorado residents, the atheist group┬áFreedom From Religion Foundation has lost its case in a bid to ban what they felt was an unconstitutional “State Day of Prayer” proposed by the governor, with the state Supreme Court citing a lack of standing to file suit.
Get all the details on the challenge at washingtontimes.com
Religion scholar and atheist Navy chaplain candidate Jason Heap has decided to fight the rejection of his application with support from the Humanist Society. Heap argues that he was not passed over because of a lack of qualifications, but for non-belief of a traditional religion.
Were his constitutional rights violated? Read more at stripes.com
Under new policy guidelines, 500 of Australia’s school chaplains┬ámay not have their positions federally funded. The new rules state that all student welfare officers must possess “religious qualifications or endorsements by a recognised or accepted religious institution”, potentially barring employment of any secular chaplains.
Learn more at abc.net.au