11.11.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 5:13 pm by Hemant Mehta
South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer is quite pissed off that a judge ruled the “I Believe” license plates were unconstitutional.
He writes on his website:
For those who say proclaiming “I believe” violates the constitution by giving preference to Christianity, I think this lawsuit clearly discriminates against persons of faith. I will ask the state Attorney General to vigorously appeal this ruling because it is time that people stand up for their beliefs. Enough is enough.
This is absurd. As Sandhya Bathija of Americans United writes, “This lawsuit actually prevents discrimination against persons of faith, and that’s more than evident.”
Bauer goes on:
I could say that this is yet another example of judicial activism, of federal judges out of control. My instincts tell me that it’s even deeper than that. I think it’s another attack on Christianity and I’m not going to sit by and watch this one happen.
Someone should tell Bauer that two of the plaintiffs, Rev. Tom Summers and Rev. Monty Knight, are Christians…
In fact, here’s what Summers said about the case:
“I received some emails that asked how I, as a Christian minister, could be involved with this,” Summers said.
“But what I told them is that it is very Christian to be involved in a matter like this,” Summers continued. “One of the core values of Christianity is equality and fairness. This case is wrapped up on a human level on the issue of fairness. For a license plate to be displayed that is government sanctioned only for one faith group, it makes other faith groups in our state feel very isolated.”
What does Bauer say about this again?
… I think it’s another attack on Christianity and I’m not going to sit by and watch this one happen.
Right.
One more excerpt from Bauer:
I am proud and unrelenting in my support of the Legislature’s unanimous enactment of this plate.
Why? Because the “I believe” plate reflects core values that are meaningful to our society, promoting love, joy, and comfort in our spiritual lives, and accommodating to every citizen’s right of free exercise of any and all religions
All religions? Then why is there a Christian cross on the plate? And what about people of no faith?
Bauer doesn’t care. He doesn’t get the notion that there are people who don’t subscribe to Christianity and some of us who find Christian beliefs offensive.
Separation of church and state benefits everybody. There’s no need for the state to issue this license plate. The judge made the right decision and Bauer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
The Lt. Gov. also mentions he doesn’t like how the judge awarded AU and another group their rightful attorneys’ fees. Bathija has a suggestion for him:
In the end, Bauer claims he is “offended” that Americans United was rewarded attorneys’ fees in this case. Well, here’s some advice to him and the South Carolina legislature on how to avoid that in the future: stop violating the Constitution.
Permalink ~
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
Last time the South Carolina license plates which promote Christianity were in the courtroom, an injunction was handed down, preventing the plates from being issued.
Nearly a year later, the plates were back in the courtroom, and this time, the same judge says the plates are unconstitutional (PDF):
Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same,” Currie wrote. “The statute is clearly unconstitutional and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.
Besides the obvious reason this there is an entanglement of church and state, why is the plate a bad idea? Because not all faiths get the same opportunity. Some state legislators even said they “would not vote for similar plates for minority faiths.”
Meanwhile, there’s no problem with the “In Reason We Trust” plates sponsored by the Secular Humanists of the Low Country. If you want it, you pay for it. Taxpayer money isn’t involved.
For some reason, the Christians pushing this “I Believe” plate think everyone else ought to pay for promotion of their religion. It’s pathetic and it’s illegal.
Thankfully, the judge has now put a stop to it.
Permalink ~
11.10.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 4:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Forsyth County in North Carolina could owe about $100,000 in legal fees if a federal judge finds them liable for promoting Christianity at their regular meetings. All of this could’ve been avoided if they simply used their common sense and kept religion out of the government.
A federal magistrate has recommended that prayers referencing Jesus and other sectarian deities made before meetings of the Forsyth County Commissioners are unconstitutional.
The decision, by Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, was in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit against Forsyth County on behalf of Janet Joyner and Constance Blackmon, residents of Forsyth County who have attended commissioners’ meetings.
“The defendant’s prayer alienates those whose beliefs differ from Christian beliefs and divides citizens along religious lines,” said Katy Parker, one of the attorneys with the ACLU.
“The government has to remain neutral on matters of religion, and that’s what the Establishment Clause is all about — that the government can’t pick sides,” she said.
Other cities are sometimes allowed to get away with this because they invite people from several religious faiths and no faith at all — and all of them may only give a non-sectarian prayer, that is, no mention of one particular deity or another.
That wasn’t the case here, though. The magistrate’s decision is precise and blunt (PDF) in explaining how Jesus-centric Forsyth County prayers were:
The undisputed record shows that the prayers delivered at the outset of Board meetings from May 29, 2007 through December 15, 2008 referred to Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, or Savior with overwhelming frequency… No non- Christian deities are invoked… These prayers as a whole cannot be considered non- sectarian or civil prayer. They display a preference for Christianity over other religions by the government.
“Overwhelming frequency” means 26 out of 33 invocations contained a reference to Jesus or the like.
Again, this is an easy problem to fix.
Remove prayers before meetings.
You want to pray? Do it on your own time. You don’t need to force the rest of the city (or at least those who attend meetings) to do it with you. Why is that so damn difficult to comprehend?
But apparently, the requirement that religion be kept private is too much for these Christians to deal with. The Alliance Defense Fund (defending the county) has not yet released a statement on the matter as far as I can tell…
(Thanks to Michael for the link)
Permalink ~
11.07.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits at 12:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
We’ve all heard stories about how some Christians pharmacists cite “conscience clauses” to withhold birth control or morning-after pills from women because those things go against their faith. (Of course, they should be fired for not doing their job.)
But this notion of religious fundamentalists thinking the rules don’t apply to them stretches beyond the pharmacy.
Pam McLaurin, an evangelical Christian and kindergarten teacher in Texas, refuses to give police her fingerprints for a background check and she’s suing over it.
Her lawsuit cites the Bible — which, in her mind, says that fingerprints are the Mark of the Beast.
Her attorney, Scott Skelton, said his client believes that the computerized fingerprinting, in which her fingerprints will be stored in a database, is the mark addressed in Revelation. The teacher does not believe that it is merely coincidence that Revelation says only those with the ‘mark on his forehead or on his hand’ will be able to buy or sell, since only those teachers who comply with fingerprinting requirements will keep their jobs, he said.
“This law prohibits the free exercise of her religion,” Skelton said in a telephone interview.
Before anyone comments that someone with her mentality shouldn’t be allowed near children, I should mention there’s no evidence that she teaches Creationism or preaches hellfire or anything like that to the children. So I’ll avoid that characterization.
As for her sanity? That’s up for debate.
Regardless, this is still a problem.
If she gets her way, what’s to stop criminals who don’t want to be fingerprinted from using the same argument? Couldn’t they refuse to give a DNA sample for religious reasons as well?
It’s a slippery slope we’d be heading down if this lawsuit gained any traction.
(While we’re at it, how could the Mark of the Beast come from fingerprints that she surely believes God created? Oh, never mind… there’s no use trying to parse the logic in her argument when there is none to begin with.)
Permalink ~
Posted in Atheist Advertising, General, Lawsuits at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
LeRoy Matthews led people in prayer on Tuesday night. And now, he’s in trouble,
The reason? He led the prayer while driving a Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus… And he wouldn’t let passengers out until the prayer was over.
In the complaint, the passenger told MARTA officials the bus was traveling northbound when it stopped at the corner of Northlake Parkway and Lavista Road.
As the passenger, whose name was not released, approached the front of the bus, Matthews stood from his seat and asked everyone to hold hands for a brief word of prayer.
Maybe Matthews and Angela Shiel should form some sort of Christian bus driver union…
It’ll be tough for Matthews to spin his way out of this one and who knows if he’ll learn his lesson in the five days during which he’s suspended. It’s bad enough that he’s wasting his own time by praying, but he has no right to waste the time of others or, even worse, not give them the option of getting off the bus.
(Thanks to Ashes for the link!)
Permalink ~
11.06.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 6:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
Are you sitting down?
You may want to be sitting down for this.
It looks like your money will continue to have “In God We Trust” written on it.
The lawsuit filed by atheist Carlos Kidd against President Obama and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to remove the motto from the currency was dismissed by a judge earlier this week.
The brief ruling by the judge said that there was no Establishment Clause conflict based on previous church/state separation cases.
I’m no lawyer… but how is that phrase not an endorsement of religion over non-religion? (Not only that, you know the phrase refers to the Christian god…)
It’s not the most pressing issue atheists have to worry about — we still have to fight against faith-based initiatives, for one — and I would think it virtually impossible to get the phrase off our currency anytime soon, but this is a lawsuit I don’t mind seeing.
Some could argue that it’s yet another case that will set a precedent for the future — a lawsuit that will hurt our future efforts in this area.
Still, I see an upside. Lawsuits like this can get blasted by the media and bloggers. But it raises the question of why that phrase is on the currency in the first place. People start to read up on why the phrase was adopted by our country as its motto — in response to those “Godless Communists” — and why it was originally put on our coins in the 1860s.
Why was it, you ask? Here’s a piece of the letter from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase which urged the Secretary to put holy words on the coins:
Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.
…
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.
A couple years later, “In God We Trust” was adopted. It went away for a little while, but it’s been there since the 1950s.
How is that phrase not Christian? How is it not a violation of church/state separation? How is it not a violation of the Establishment Clause?
The judge was wrong, plain and simple.
And, yes, so were all those other judges before him.
(Thanks to Donna for the link)
Permalink ~
11.05.09
Posted in Jesse Galef, Lawsuits, Secular Coalition for America at 12:00 pm by Jesse Galef
This post is by Jesse Galef, who is stepping in today.
–
I know they do things differently “across the pond” but I was still surprised to read that in a legal case in England, climate change belief was given the same legal status as religion. No joke.
Tim Nicholson is a strong environmentalist to the point that he refuses to travel by air. He believes this was a factor in his recent termination and wants to sue for wrongful discrimination. This week, a judge ruled that his environmentalism qualifies as a “genuinely held philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations” and that he could proceed with a lawsuit.
Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.
He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.
“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.
“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”
His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, “the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination”.
Now, I don’t know enough about the British law to comment on the judge’s decision – it might be an accurate dispensation of their written laws. But this is a great example of how complex the issue of secularism can be and how tough it is to implement. We don’t want the state to define religion – that would be none of their authority – and without a definition we have other problems.
This situation reminds me off is the so-called “conscience protection clauses” that are typically associated with the religious right here in America. Senator Enzi tried to slip one in the healthcare bill – I remember because when I was with the Secular Coalition we lobbied against it. It states that if a healthcare employee feels a particular act violates their conscience, he or she can refuse to do so without fear of being fired. In context, it usually means that someone can refuse to assist in like abortions, sell contraception, or provide end of life care. Our position has generally been that if your supernatural beliefs are affecting your job performance, you might have chosen the wrong job and companies have the right to dismiss you.
I suppose that if a country is going to have a law like the “conscience protection clause” for religion, it might as well apply for nonreligious moral systems, right?
Wait, I just thought of something: I have a sincere belief, based on science and philosophy, that religion is incorrect and that it is immoral to promote faith. In my job search, perhaps I should consider applying for the clergy in England – I could get paid while conscientiously refusing to work!
Permalink ~
11.04.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 12:00 pm by Hemant Mehta
After decades in which Christian crosses were placed in public school classrooms in Italy, it looks like they’ll finally be taken down.
The decision was handed down by a panel of seven judges at the court in Strasbourg. They said that the display of crucifixes, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be intimidating for children from other faiths.
“The presence of the crucifix could be … disturbing for pupils who practiced other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities,” the court said. “The compulsory display of a symbol of a given confession in premises used by the public authorities… restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions,” it added.
Crucifixes were an undeniable symbol of Catholicism, the court ruled, and as such were at odds with the principle of “educational pluralism.”
It’s a good move, of course — Get rid of the faith and focus on achieving a real education based in fact.
Not so surprisingly, not everyone is happy with this decision:
The newly-elected head of the main opposition Democratic Party, Pierluigi Bersani, commented that the ruling lacked common sense. “I think a longstanding tradition like the crucifix can’t be offensive to anyone,” he said.
Right… Unless the cross symbolizes how hundreds of millions of people around the world firmly believe you are going to spend eternity in hell because you prefer to think with your brain and not your heart.
Another upside to this decision is that it could start a trend, removing crosses (and other symbols of faith) all across Europe.
Which shouldn’t be a big deal at all. They’re unnecessary in public schools. Keep them at home or church. Good riddance.
(Thanks to Juliette for the link!)
Permalink ~
10.28.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Politics at 9:00 am by Hemant Mehta
There’s some good news for California teacher Jim Corbett, who was accused by his former student Chad Farnan of making anti-Christian comments during history class.
The clerk’s office in federal district court in Santa Anna, California has determined that nearly $20,000 in court costs should be borne by high school student Chad Farnan…
The fees are to be paid by Advocates for Faith & Freedom, a Christian legal group that represented Farnan pro-bono. The school district and teachers’ union, whose attorneys also represented Corbett, now plan to file a motion to recover over $378,000 in attorneys’ fees.
This case is complicated to figure out. Corbett was found to have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The school district and Corbett, at separate hearings, were found to be not liable for Corbett’s actions because of his “qualified immunity defense.”
And now, Farnan’s legal team has to pay the court costs.
Corbett’s team is still seeking to recover attorney’s fees ($378,519) and it’s possible that Advocates for Faith & Freedom will have to pay that again. Not surprisingly, they’re appealing.
(See? Complicated.)
Corbett actually commented on this site about his situation — he feels that the reported comments he made in class have been distorted and taken out of context.
Permalink ~
10.27.09
Posted in General, Lawsuits, Sports at 6:00 am by Hemant Mehta
A few weeks ago, I posted about the cheerleaders at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe High School in Georgia and their pro-Christian banners:
No doubt the banners were inevitably going to lead to a lawsuit. A parent complained and the cheerleaders were told to stop their proselytizing.
It was the right decision.
The Christians who thought they were being “victimized” by following the law here had an easy way to counteract this if they chose to — students could just bring their own pro-Christian signs to the game. That would be perfectly legal.
It looks like they’re taking that advice:
… a month later, the new policy has produced an unexpected result: more biblical verses than ever at football games, displayed not by cheerleaders but by fans sitting in the stands.
Startled and dismayed by the district’s policy, this town of 9,600 people has taken up the cause — and the signs — of the cheerleaders. Calling themselves Warriors for Christ, a twist on the school’s Warriors nickname, fans have held rallies at churches and a local polo field and sold more than 1,600 T-shirts bearing passages from Deuteronomy and Timothy.
A couple things stand out to me about this article.
First, we have the soundbyte from an atheist student:
Even Caleb Wickersham, a 17-year-old atheist from nearby southern Tennessee, acknowledges that fans are exercising a legal right to free speech. “From an atheist’s standpoint, it’s frustrating because I don’t want more religion in my face,” Caleb said. “But it’s their constitutional right.”
I love that quotation because he shares the sentiment I think a lot of us would have. He may not like it, but he acknowledges the legality of what the students are doing.
How many times do we hear about atheists publicly sharing their beliefs in a legal way (e.g. the atheist billboards, getting an atheist license plate, wearing a Scarlet A button, etc.) and the Christian response seems to always be, “This is offensive and it needs to stop”? I’m not saying it’s always the case, but it’s not very often I hear Christians saying “I don’t like it but it’s their constitutional right.”
The second interesting thing I learned is who led the way for the cheerleaders to stop using their pro-Christian banners:
The parent who contacted the school, Donna Jackson, is a graduate student at Liberty University, the evangelical Virginia institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. Ms. Jackson, who had taken a law class, says she was just trying to protect the school from litigation.
I’m shocked: A Liberty student who actually knows the law?! Impressive.
Some Christians are still pissed off they can’t display their banners on the field, but those are likely the same people who would get offended if the banner in question was anything other than Christian.
Do you think they’d be equally supportive of a banner that read:
“There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and play the game.”
(Thanks to Lyz for the link!)
Permalink ~
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
