Mediaboss Marketing

Washington D.C., Jun 26, 2017 / 11:32 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In one of the biggest religious cases of the term, the US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a church-owned playground can be eligible for a public benefit program.

Chief Justice John Roberts, delivering the opinion of the Court, wrote June 26 that the exclusion of Trinity Lutheran, the church at the center of the case, from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand.

The decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer was about religious people being treated just like everybody else, stated Mike Farris, president of Alliance Defending Freedom.

At issue was a playground owned by Trinity Lutheran Church in Columbia, Mo., and operated by the churchs preschool. To resurface the playground for safety reasons, the church had applied for a state reimbursement program that provides rubber surfacing material made from used tires. Trinity Lutheran had ranked the fifth most qualified out of 44 applicants for the program.

The states natural resources department ultimately ruled the church ineligible for the program because of its religious status. The Missouri state constitution forbids taxpayer funding of churches. The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and sent it back to the lower courts.

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts opinion of the Court that the denial of the churchs eligibility for the program violated the free exercise clause. Justice Stephen Breyer filed an opinion concurring in Chief Justice Roberts' judgement.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the Courts opinion except for a footnote stating that the decision was about discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing, and does not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination.

I worry that some might mistakenly read the footnote to apply only to playground resurfacing cases, or only those with some association with childrens safety or health, or perhaps some other social good we find sufficiently worthy, Gorsuch wrote.

He added that the general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercisewhether on the playground or anywhere else.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the Courts opinion.

The Church had argued that the new surface would be a safety upgrade for the playground operated by its preschool and used by members of the community during non-school hours.

It was used by both church members and non-members, they insisted, and should not be ruled ineligible for a state benefit program available to other entities just because it is owned by a religious institution.

Opposing the church was the ACLU, which had argued that to make the church eligible for state benefits would be an unconstitutional violation of the establishment clause.

Missouris denial of the church, however, goes too far under precedents of Supreme Court decisions, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, and violates the Free Exercise Clause.

The Missouri law was passed during a time when many other states were passing laws barring public funding of sectarian schools, widely viewed at the time to mean Catholic schools and other religious schools that were not part of the public school system. The laws were modeled after the federal Blaine Amendment, proposed in the 1870s and named after Maine Congressman James Blaine. His amendment was proposed, but never passed by Congress.

In oral arguments in the case, justices also discussed the broader constitutionality of religious groups having access to other public benefits, including a Jewish synagogue requesting a security detail.

Catholic leaders applauded Mondays ruling.

The Supreme Court is signaling in this decision that the government must stop its growing hostility towards religion and religious institutions, and that antiquated and anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments should not be used as a weapon to discriminate against people of faith, Maureen Ferguson, senior policy advisor with The Catholic Association, stated.

For over a century, Blaine Amendments have enshrined into law discrimination against faith-based charities and schools that form an essential part of American society, Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with The Catholic Association, stated. In this case, a state Blaine Amendment was used to justify blacklisting a Christian elementary school from a playground safety program solely on religious grounds.

Blaine Amendments are anti-Catholic in their origin, and getting rid of them is more than a century overdue, she added. Todays decision demands a more fair and inclusive approach to government programs meant to serve all people."

The decision will have an effect in the future, David Cortman, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case for the church before the Court in April, said. Whenever religious people, organizations, see themselves being discriminated against, this case will be the controlling precedent, he added.

Members of Congress also weighed in on the decision. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) called it an important ruling for religious liberty with profound significance for Americas civil society.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus and who filed an amicus brief with colleagues on behalf of Trinity Lutheran in the case, stated that todays decision affirms the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religionto have more than just a belief but to live out your faith without discrimination from the government.

The case was ultimately between the church and the states natural resources department. Missouris attorney general recused himself in the case.

Missouris governor Eric Greitens (R) had already announced that in the future, religious institutions could be eligible for benefit programs of the natural resources department. However, the Court stated on Monday that that announcement does not moot this case.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, stated that this case is about nothing less than the relationship between church and state.

The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church, she added. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this countrys longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that it is true the Department has not criminalized the way Trinity Lutheran worships or told the Church that it cannot subscribe to a certain view of the Gospel.

But, as the Department itself acknowledges, the Free Exercise Clause protects against indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions. And a church being denied participation in public benefits because of its religious character can be such an indirect coercion on the free exercise of religion, he continued.

In this case, there is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. The rule is simple: No churches need apply.

Read this article:
Supreme Court rules in favor of church in crucial First Amendment case - Catholic News Agency

To commemorate World Refugee Day (Tuesday, June 20th), Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) and over 60 faith leaders and attorneys made a pilgrimage to the Adelanto Detention Facility from Los Angeles to visit with our friends and clients, many of whom had been on a hunger strike the week prior. ICE and GEO Group denied all our visits. In response to a peaceful 5-minute interfaith prayer outside the facility, ICE and GEO Group then put the entire facility on lockdown.

Attorneys and family members who were not part of the pilgrimage and who had already been granted entrance to the facility were expelled from the facility by ICE and GEO Group in response to our prayer. This included young children clinging to their toys. They had driven for hours to visits their parents.

This comes just days after ICE and GEO Group admitted to violating the First Amendment rights of 9 men detained at Adelanto who were brutally assaulted and attacked with pepper spray. The 9 men, who were later joined by 33 women, went on hunger strike at Adelanto to protest substandard medical care, unjustly high immigration bonds, lack of basic respect, and lack of opportunities to connect with family.

When we see abuse in detention, it is our moral obligation to speak up and stand in solidarity with our friends in detention. By denying us access after a peaceful and short prayer, ICE has tried to make us choose between our First Amendment rights and visiting our friends and clients in immigration detention. This is not a choice our government can legally ask us to make.

As an attorney in California, I also was denied visits with 14 of my clients on Tuesday who were detained at the Adelanto Detention Facility. I had received email approval from ICE in advance of Tuesday for four of my legal assistants to conduct legal visits at Adelanto with me. According to the Adelanto Detention Facility rules, attorneys are allowed 24 hour access to their clients in immigration detention. And federal standards require attorneys to have access to their clients seven days a week without pre-approval; only legal assistants require pre-approval by ICE. To visit at Adelanto through regular visitation hours as a family member, friend, or community member does not require pre-approval from ICE or GEO Group.

On Tuesday, we were provided with no reason for why our visits were being denied. The warden of the Adelanto Detention Facility told us that ICE had denied our visits due to the circumstances. However, neither ICE nor GEO Group would define what were the circumstances.

Could the visitation denials be retaliation for CIVICs role in passing a new California law just days before? The new law bans immigration detention expansion and ensures that our state Attorney General can monitor immigration detention facilities. There were already construction vehicles on the Adelanto Detention Facilitys property, and it looked like the facility was attempting to build an expansion. The new California law could prevent this expansion. The facilitys most recent expansion in 2015 resulted in $21 million in additional annualized revenue for GEO Group and its shareholders. While we are not certain why ICE and GEO Group locked us out of the facility, the timing is suspicious.

Photo by Nancy Evans

On other occasions, GEO and ICE have arbitrarily and without valid grounds denied access to attorneys and visitor volunteers associated with CIVIC in retaliation for peaceful protest activities and public statements protected by the First Amendment.

In November 2015, attorneys and legal assistants were denied visits with people on hunger strike.

In May 2015, GEO Group and ICE prevented me from visiting my clients after I lawfully exercised my First Amendment rights.

In August 2013, CIVIC visitor volunteers and I were barred from visiting for over a month at the Adelanto Detention Facility in retaliation again for exercising our First Amendment rights. The ACLU of SoCal and Sidley Austin LLP raised concerns about the 2013 and 2015 denials in a letter dated August 24, 2015, which to this day neither GEO nor ICE has responded to.

Earlier this year, in January 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint about a general increase in family and community visitation denials at Adelanto.

In March 2017, CIVIC filed a federal civil rights complaint, detailing access denials and restrictions in violation of federal policy at Adelanto and 13 other immigration detention facilities in Arizona, California, Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

While CIVIC and allies remain concerned about general visitation denials and these past First Amendment violations, Tuesdays visitation denials marked a disturbing new Constitutional violation. ICE and GEO Groups retaliation against the faith leaders violated their fundamental right to free exercise of religion.

This denial of freedom of religion mirrors the type of abuse happening inside the Adelanto Detention Facility on a regular basis. Women who went on hunger strike last week explain that they often try to pray in circles, holding each others hands. But the GEO guards physically break up their prayer circles and threaten them with the hole, also known as solitary confinement. ICE has allowed this behavior by GEO Group to go unchecked, despite complaints by people in immigration detention directly to ICE.

When our prayers are stopped by GEO Group, it makes me feel like praying is something bad, said one woman who was on hunger strike last week. But what I say to them is that if being put in the hole is for God, then take me.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more:
ICE Violates First Amendment Rights of 60 Faith Leaders and ... - HuffPost

Mary Assel 12:05 a.m. ET June 27, 2017

Doug Early, of Sterling Heights, holds a "No Sharia" sign during a "March Against Sharia" on June 10 on Telegraph Road in Southfield. Protestors gathered to show their opposition to Islamic law, which they believe is threatening American rights.(Photo: Rachel Woolf / Special to Detroit News)

For all religious, social and political institutions to be effective, it is crucial to establish guidelines, rules and regulations for its supporters. Accordingly, the Quran outlines religious or Sharia guidelines for its believers so that as a religious entity, Muslims may conduct a just, ethical and moral life. Sharia guidelines are found in the canon of Islam as are elements of faith in the canons of Christianity and Judaism. They are intended to protect believers rights in matters such as marriage, education, safety, dietary restrictions, inheritance and peaceful cooperation among themselves and others.

The Quran sets forth a code of conduct for all Muslims to abide by if they wish to remain in compliance with divine revelations. In fact, all monotheistic religions require similar codes of conduct and divine obedience.

According to the First Amendment, it is illegal to deprive anyone from practicing or following the guidelines of religion. Every person in the United States has the right to religious freedom and by condemning those who worship God in ways that differ from ones own, is saying, I can worship God and follow his guidelines, but you cant, unless you worship him my way. Muslims are expressly told to protect non-Muslims in practicing their religion, so why should they be attacked for believing in the standard procedures of their religion?

Muslims believe that the Quran in which Sharia guidelines are found is one of the most sacred religious texts in the history of mankind. Muslims consider it to be the direct word of God transmitted to the Prophet Mohammed through the Angel Gabriel. It emphasizes the importance of believing in God and the afterlife. It outlines the stories of prophets and saints and how to emulate their conduct. In Islam, the most important codes of conduct are the five pillars of Islam: fasting, charitable giving, performing the pilgrimage, daily prayer and the belief in one God.

While living in secular countries, many Muslims choose to abide by the five pillars of Islam and comply with Sharia guidelines in matters such as marriage, inheritance, dietary restrictions, charitable contributions and dress code. Yet, in legal matters they conform to the lawful guidelines of their country of residence. It is clear in the Quran that secular law and the laws set forth by a countrys constitution take precedence over Sharia.

It is Muslims obligation to obey the established civil law enforcement agencies of the country in which they live. They must obey the law of the land and pledge allegiance to its flag as long as it does not deny the existence of God. Hence, Sharia guidelines are not a substitute for civil law, and U.S. courts have never ruled based on its content. In fact, in many instances, Sharia guidelines run parallel to civil law. For example, it forbids incest, alcohol, gambling, prostitution and discrimination based on race, sex and color. If any of the latter are transgressed in Islam, the punishment is harsh, but only in Muslim theocracies. More importantly, is when transgression does takes place, God encourages forgiveness. Also, there is no standardized manual of Sharia guidelines since it is based on the fiqh or the interpretation of the Quran.

There are courts in Muslim countries that do not rule based on Sharia guidelines and if they do, they have their own version of its application. Sharia is more of an interpretation or fiqh created by Islamic scholars. The interpretations are based on their understanding of what it means to live a life that serves the individual and society as a whole. Sharia guidelines are usually separate from the laws of the governing authorities and do not supersede civil law. Its guidelines do not come in a handbook, and it is incorrect to say Sharia urges the declaration of war on non-Muslims, and most certainly, does not subjugate women. There is nothing in the Quran that promotes the subjugation of women. It is more a traditional or cultural trend that has weaved itself into Sharia guidelines of countries with low appreciation for womens rights.

Sharia guidelines prescribe moral guidance and ethical behavior. It is the duty of every Muslim to comply with their standards as long as these actions do not harm or cause grief to others. They have the right to fulfill or not fulfill their religious obligations and cannot be forced to do so since they believe in free will.

Dr. Mary Assel is the retired director of the English Language Institute at Henry Ford College.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ubukvf

See original here:
Column: First Amendment protects Sharia law - The Detroit News

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its first decisions addressing the relationship between the First Amendment and the Internet. In Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017), the Court holds that a North Carolina sex offender statute violates the First Amendments free speech guarantee.

The North Carolina statute at issue in Packingham made it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social networking websites that permit access to minor children. Lester Gerard Packingham, the petitioner and a registered sex offender, violated that law in 2010 by posting on Facebook about a traffic ticket. After his indictment by a grand jury, the instant First Amendment issue progressed through the North Carolina courts and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Justice Kennedys majority (incld. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) declares that [a] fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more. Packingham, Slip Op. at 4. The Court not only reiterated the basic tenet that a street or a park is a quintessential forum for the exercise of First Amendment rights, but took it further in stating:

While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views, today the answer is clear. It is cyberspacethe vast democratic forums of the Internet in general, and social media in particular.

Id. at 4-5 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The majority opinion, however, cautions that [t]he forces and directions of the Internet are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today might be obsolete tomorrow. Id. at 6.

The Court ultimately holds that the North Carolina statute suppress[es] lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech and therefore must be held invalid. Id. at 10 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although a State may enact specific, narrowly tailored laws that prohibit a sex offender from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor, the North Carolina statute was unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens because to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. Id. at 7-8. The Court overturned the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Courts opinion.

Justice Alitos concurrence, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, agrees that the North Carolina statute violates the First Amendment but takes issues with dicta of the majority opinion and notes that the three Justices are troubled by the implications of unnecessary rhetoric. Id., Concurrence at 2.

The concurrence notes that if the entirety of the internet or even just social media sites are the 21st century equivalent of public streets and parks, then States may have little ability to restrict the sites that may be visited by even the most dangerous sex offenders. Id. at 10. Expressing the view that [t]he Court should be more attentive to the implications of its rhetoric because there are important differences between cyberspace and the physical world, the concurring Justices recommend that we should proceed circumspectly, taking one step at a time. Id. at 10-11.

The ultimate impact and reach of these opinions, including their application of the First Amendment to social media, will be explored by lower courts, state and federal legislators, and (perhaps) again the Supreme Court (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in this decision).

Continued here:
SCOTUS Gets Social: Does the First Amendment Protect the Right to ... - Lexology (registration)

In a victory for religious citizens in Mississippi and in a promising sign for all religious Americans the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Thursday in favor of a bill that protects religious-liberty and conscience rights in the realm of marriage.

The bill, the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), allows religious organizations and businesses to operate in accord with their religions teaching on marriage and sexuality, forbids the government from silencing or firing its employees for expressing their religious beliefs, and protects employees from being forced to participate in activities that violate their consciences.

The courts ruling is also a positive sign for those hoping to enact such protections at the federal level. A federal version of FADA has been introduced in both the House and the Senate, and President Donald Trump has pledged to sign it if it crosses his desk.

The ruling means that Mississippis legislation can serve as a template for any state seeking to balance two interests: the conscience rights of those who believe that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and the intrinsic dignity and civil rights of LGBT individuals.

The conflict between those two interests has intensified in the last two years, in the wake of the Supreme Courts decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which saw five justices redefine marriage, for the entire country, as a union between two consenting adults regardless of gender. As a result, many Americans, religious and otherwise, who continue to hold the traditional definition of marriage have been marginalized and, in some cases, required by law to sanction same-sex marriages.

For example, in a number of recent, high-profile cases, religious business owners have been sued by customers or fined by state commissions for refusing to provide services for same-sex wedding ceremonies. So far, courts have uniformly sided against the owners, ruling that to deny service to any homosexual person is unlawful discrimination, regardless of religious belief.

Faithful Americans such as these business owners are routinely maligned by left-wing activists and politicians not to mention popular culture, as in this late-night comedy sketch that portrays religious-freedom laws as an expression of hatred many of whom argue that Christian are bigots who deny the humanity of LGBT people.

Such critiques either misunderstand or outright ignore the essential distinction between serving gay or lesbian clients and providing services for their wedding. For religious Americans, this is a crucial distinction, because the latter involves participation in an event that violates their faiths understanding of marriage.

Contrary to what most media reports suggest, the Mississippi bill would not permit anyone to deny service to individuals because of their sexual orientation. In fact, not a single religious-liberty bill has been proposed to allow such discrimination, at either the state or the federal level. To suggest otherwise is supremely dishonest, and it poisons any possibility of finding a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Whats more, bills such as FADA must be understood in the context of our post-Obergefell society, where people who hold the traditional view of marriage are often treated by popular culture as if they were no better than racists. In such a climate, it is essential that religious citizens be given legal protection, especially since the government itself has embraced a conception of marriage in contradiction to the view of a substantial plurality of the public.

The Fifth Circuits legal rationale in upholding FADA provides a helpful context for understanding the best way to balance the two sets of rights at stake in this debate. The court noted, in particular, the plaintiffs lack of standing, due to their failure to assert anything more than a general stigmatic injury or to demonstrate injury-in-fact.

With this explanation, the court seems to point to the fundamental distinction between material and dignitary harms, the first of which merits a higher level of legal protection. Dignitary harm is considered a lesser category: It can sometimes be permitted by law, for the sake of preserving other fundamental rights.

Applied to FADA, the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate injury-in-fact and instead simply stigmatic injury suggests that the right to religious freedom is fundamental enough that states can permit some dignitary harms for the sake of preserving the right. If FADA were to permit religious Americans to perpetrate material harms against LGBT individuals the court argued that the bill does not the ruling would probably have been different.

Regardless of ongoing contention over the definition of marriage, most Americans agree that we ought to be able to coexist peacefully even when we deeply disagree, and this bill works to that end. Progressives must be willing to admit that Mississippis FADA isnt a weapon of discrimination wielded by bigots against LGBT individuals. One can disagree with the bills specific policies and still acknowledge that some legal protection is needed for a minority group whose beliefs have fallen out of favor.

At the same time, those on the right who care about the future of religious freedom must continue to testify to the inherent dignity of LGBT individuals, regardless of ones view of marriage. That will enable more people to understand that religious Americans can fully respect their neighbor even as they are free to live out the tenets of their faith in daily life. Such an understanding, coupled with prudent legal defenses such as Mississippis FADA, is the best path forward for true compromise on this issue.

READ MORE: Obergefells Toxic Judicial Legacy Are Millennials Following the Success Sequence Hey Guys, Put a Ring on It: Married Men Are Healthier, Wealthier, and Happier

Alexandra DeSanctis is a William F. Buckley Fellow in Political Journalism at the National Review Institute.

See the original post here:
In Mississippi, a Bill to Protect Religious Liberty Gets the Green Light - National Review