KABUL—The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a small Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.

Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians.

…

Gen. Caldwell said many Afghans do not understand either the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment or the fact that President Barack Obama can’t simply issue a decree to stop Mr. Jones from his demonstration.

…

“There is no question about First Amendment rights; that is not the issue,” Gen. Caldwell said. “The question is: What is the implication over here? It is going to jeopardize the men and women serving in Afghanistan.”

Read the full article.

In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It’s not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.

Concerns of this kind are not confined to the Tea Party belt. Late professors Arthur Schlesinger and Samuel Huntington both published books expressing misgivings about, respectively, multiculturalism and rapid demographic change. But these were phrased so carefully as almost to avoid starting the argument they flirted with. More recently, almost every European country has seen the emergence of populist parties that call upon nativism and give vent to the idea that the majority population now feels itself unwelcome in its own country. The ugliness of Islamic fundamentalism in particular has given energy and direction to such movements. It will be astonishing if the United States is not faced, in the very near future, with a similar phenomenon. Quite a lot will depend on what kind of politicians emerge to put themselves at the head of it. Saturday’s rally was quite largely confined to expressions of pathos and insecurity, voiced in a sickly and pious tone. The emotions that underlay it, however, may not be uttered that way indefinitely. (Emphasis added)

Read the full article.

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.

The following is reposted with the permission of the author and is also available at The Revealer, ReligiousFreedomUSA and Spectrum Magazine .  Editor

By Joshua M.Z. Stanton -

When John F. Kennedy was running for president in 1960, fear-mongers raised the specter of his dual loyalty. Would he really serve American interests or merely be a pawn for the Vatican? After all, he was a Catholic. Church doctrine, it was whispered, could co-opt the person designated to uphold America’s laws and Constitution.

Similar fears have been raised about Muslim-Americans, and ironically, often in conjunction with our current Christian president. Generalizations based on religion are disturbing because they reduce rich, diverse, and complicated belief structures to monolithic and inaccurate convictions. Yet what is most galling is the fact that accusations of dual loyalty, no less to a religion other than the president’s own, have not dissipated during the course of Obama’s first term in office. If anything, they have grown more raucous and extreme.

So what exactly is the unknown that fear-mongers harp on? Among other things, it is the fear that a growing American religious community may suddenly undermine the country’s Constitutional values. Sharia, so-called Islamic law, is the new specter that fills the void left by the dissipated fear of Vatican doctrine and fear of Communism that crumbled alongside the Soviet Union. Forget the millions of Muslims in the United States who drink coffee, go to work, raise children, celebrate the Fourth of July, and pay their taxes on time. Sharia equals terrorism. “Need proof,” the fear-mongers ask? Just look at the fact that the terrorists who attacked us on September 11 observed Sharia. “Do you want to support terrorism?”

This argument not only appallingly conflates all Muslims with Muslims who observe Sharia, but Muslims who observe Sharia with terrorists. The notion that 1.4 billion people could ever be the same might seem laughable, were the decision to lump all Muslims together – and then equate them with the worst handful – not made so frequently. This false logic is at the root of much fear.

Trying to provide a parallel to the pseudo-logic of Islamophobia is a challenge. Here is but a vain attempt from American history: fear of the Japanese during World War II. Many differences are immediately apparent. The United States was actually at war with Japan (it is not at war with Islam), Japan is a nation rather than a highly disparate group of religious practitioners, and the war was being fought in good part through conventional tactics. Even so, the widespread fear of a fifth column had horrendous consequences for freedom in America. The American government, under an Executive Order from the Roosevelt Administration, rounded up and interned more than 120,000 American citizens in guarded camps, even though few if any had even considered undermining American war efforts. Their lives were tossed into disarray, undermining the American dream they immigrated for and the Constitutional values for which their brothers in arms were fighting overseas.

As a country that has long prided itself on representing a superior national enterprise, we must learn from our past. We have not yet taken unconscionable measures against our Muslim citizens and must avoid doing so at all costs. As our history indicates, our Constitutional values may well be at stake when we fear and single out an American community.

Currently, we see Islamophobes and fear-mongers inching us toward unthinkable violations of religious freedom. In America, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace-loving and loyal citizens. Their mosques and community centers reflect this outlook. Yet when civic leaders in New York recently went public with their hope to transform the former Burlington Coat Factory building into a Muslim community center, they were tarred and feathered for “radicalism.” Their proposedPark51 center was mislabeled the “Ground Zero Mosque” and the center’s visionaries, Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, were labeled terrorist sympathizers. Both condemn terrorism and have worked tirelessly for decades to prevent it through interfaith collaboration and dialogue. Rauf even partnered with the George W. Bush administration to work for Middle East peace. Moreover, the movie theaters, swimming pools, dining areas and conference centers they propose are hardly radical. Only through conflation, distortion, and fear could we become so afraid of a mere recreation center.

Some say that the notion of a “mosque” near the hallowed site of Ground Zero is insensitive. That position might seem consistent but for three things: the proposed Muslim community center is out of sight from Ground Zero, other houses of worship have not been barred from the area, and little (negative) attention has been paid to the strip clubs in the neighborhood. When strip clubs are prioritized over a place for people to talk, socialize, and pray, it seems clear that fear is at play. Better a known vice, the fear-mongers imply, than a less understood religion.

Cost of this fear is tremendous. Protests against Park51 have metastasized into a national movement against the establishment of mosques. Fighting the construction of mosques has lead to even more outrageous threats – and plans by one extremist church in Florida to burn copies of the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Even some local and national politicians have joined in the chorus of fright. Long-term solutions to terrorism are far more complicated than short-term political gain; it is easier to unite constituents against a phantasm than for a purpose. Fear of the unknown has spiraled out of control, targeting Sharia, places of worship, and now even Scripture. The fear is feeding on itself, and starting to consume the essence of religion in America: freedom. The Founding Fathers knew that when one house of worship is endangered, none of them are safe; when a Torah is burned, a Bible may be next; when one kind of religious law is defamed, theologies of all kinds may become subjected to hate.

It would seem that in the name of preserving American values – supposedly against terrorism – we have come to actually compromise those same values. Freedom cannot be preserved through its own debasement. Singling out Muslim Americans, much as with prejudice against Jewish Americans and Catholic Americans before them, will prove to be wrong. The question is how much damage will be done before the fear subsides.

Impeding the construction of Park51 actually strengthens radicals. Daisy Khan and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf have more than proven their love of America and desire for peace. If anything, the Park51 community center they envision will revitalize the neighborhood still recovering from the 9/11 attacks. It will be a sign from moderate Muslims that they stand with all Americans in the process of rebuilding – and mourning – the devastation.

In fact, the only true beneficiaries of Islamophobia are the terrorist organizations that want to show that America is not actually free, that Muslims will never be welcome here. Terrorism is both a cause and a product of fear; Islamophobes amplify the voices of extremists and create polarities that need never exist.

Rather than unwittingly aiding extremists, Americans should return to their core values, namely the profound belief in religious freedom. It is what the Pilgrims came to the New World for and what the Founders fought for during the Revolutionary War. As the great patriot Thomas Paine proclaimed, “I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy.” That is a credo to which all Americans of faith can ascribe, so long as they do not succumb to fear.
__
Joshua Stanton, is co-Director of Religious Freedom USA and a Founding Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue™. A Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow at Hebrew Union College, he is the recipient of numerous leadership awards. He is also a blogger for the Huffington Post and serves on the Board of Directors of World Faith, as well as the Education as Transformation project.

Read the full article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

EXCERPTS:

The dispute over the construction of an Islamic center at “Ground Zero” in Lower Manhattan has now sunk to a level of stupidity that really does shame the memory and the victims of that terrible day in September 2001. One might think that a mosque or madrassa was being proposed in the place of the fallen towers themselves or atop the atomized ingredients of what was once a mass grave.

…

Take, for example, the widely publicized opinion of Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Supporting those relatives of the 9/11 victims who have opposed Cordoba House, he drew a crass analogy with the Final Solution and said that, like Holocaust survivors, “their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” This cracked tune has been taken up by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who additionally claim to be ventriloquizing the emotions of millions of Americans who did not suffer bereavement. It has also infected the editorial pages of the normally tougher-mindedWeekly Standard, which called on President Obama to denounce the Cordoba House on the grounds that a 3-to-1 majority of Americans allegedly find it “offensive.”

…

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment or the principle of the “wall of separation.” In his incoherent statement, Foxman made the suggestion that it might be all right if the Cordoba House was built “a mile away.” He appears to be unaware that an old building at the site is already housing overflow from the nearby Masjid al-Farah mosque.

Read the full article:  http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

Religious intolerance has now joined racism in many parts of the world as the leading cause of the persecution of minorities, a new global report from Minority Rights Group International reveals.

State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2010reports that the rise of religious nationalism, the economic marginalization of religious minorities and the abuse of counter-terrorism laws have all led to a growing pattern of persecution against religious minorities globally.

On every continent, religious minorities are facing attack, detention, torture and the repression of their fundamental freedoms.
“Religious intolerance is the new racism,” says Mark Lattimer, Director of Minority Rights Group International. “Many communities that have faced racial discrimination for decades are now being targeted because of their religion.”

According to the report the targeting of minorities on religious grounds is now increasingly becoming a trend in most of Western Europe and in North America while in parts of Asia and Africa religion is fast overtaking race or ethnicity as the key factor driving discrimination and violent attacks against communities. In many states, from the United Kingdom to Ethiopia to Bangladesh, poverty is increasingly correlated with religion.

Minorities, particularly Muslims, across the USA and Europe, have been targets of increased state controls as well as nationalist campaigns by right-wing groups. In Switzerland, following a campaign by the ultra-conservative Swiss People’s Party, a majority of participating voters backed a referendum, which proposed a ban on the building of new minarets in mosques.

The report also finds that nearly a decade after 9/11, religious minorities across the world face increased attacks, persecution and a clampdown on their freedoms due to stringent counter-terrorism measures.

In Iraq and Pakistan, both countries at the forefront of the ‘war on terror’, attacks against religious minorities have escalated in recent years.
In Iraq, religious groups such as the Christians, Mandaeans, Baha’i and Yezidis, have become targets of violence, including murder, abduction, rape and looting of properties, since the 2003 US-led invasion. In Pakistan, partly as a backlash and response to the US and Pakistani military operations, the Taliban have targeted Christians for attack, through killings, torture, forcible conversions and burning of churches and Bibles, the report says.

In the last decade there has also been an increase in religious profiling as part of counter-terrorism measures introduced by governments. In most cases the targets have been men believed to be Muslim or originating from a Muslim state.

In the aftermath of the Christmas Day 2009 attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit, by a Nigerian Muslim, the US authorities targeted citizens of 14 countries – 13 of them predominantly Muslim – for special scrutiny at airports. In January 2009, thousands of people protested in Uttar Pradesh, India, accusing police of arresting young Muslim boys on terrorism charges with minimal evidence.

Many religious communities also face difficulties such as lack of citizenship or being unable to adhere to their customs and practices and build places of worship due to national religious registration laws. In Egypt, the government requires all identification papers to list religious affiliation, but restricts the choice to the three officially-recognized religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The Baha’i are thus unable to obtain identification papers because they refuse to lie about their religious affiliation and are deprived of access to employment, education, medical and financial services.

Since 2001, a number of countries, including Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, have either introduced or amended their religious registration laws.

‘Although these laws are sometimes presented as responses to security threats or as a means of maintaining public order, they are increasingly being used by states to monitor and control religious communities,’ says Mark Lattimer.

Notes to Editors

• Interview opportunities: London – Mark Lattimer, Executive Director, MRG International – Included with this press release is a short list of cases related to religious minorities discussed in the report. For interviews with representatives of communities cited in the cases please see their contact details listed below each of the case studies
• Minority Rights Group International (MRG) is a non-governmental organisation working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide
• For a copy of the report or to arrange interviews please contact:
  Emma Eastwood or Farah Mihlar
  T: +44 207 4224205
  M: +44 7989 699 984 or +44 7870 596863
  E: emma.eastwood@mrgmail.org or farah.mihlar@mrgmail.org

The following is a list of some specific cases of issues affecting religious minorities regionally and nationally. Interviewees and their contact details are listed below each case:

Rise of far right in Europe fuels spread of intolerance towards religious minorities

A rise in right-wing radicalism is fuelling the spread of xenophobia and extremist attitudes towards religious minorities in Europe. The report details a sharp rise in Islamophobia in Europe in 2009.

In May, ultra right-wing groups held an ‘anti-Islam’ rally to oppose the building of a large new mosque in Cologne, Germany. When the authorities in Denmark’s capital city Copenhagen approved the country’s first purpose-built mosque, the extreme-right Danish People’s Party launched an anti-mosque campaign in September. Following a campaign by the ultra-conservative Swiss People’s Party, most of Switzerland’s cantons and a majority of participating voters backed a referendum in November, which proposed a ban on the building of new minarets in mosques.

The report also notes an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents against the Jewish community in Europe. The chapter also points to the global financial crisis contribution to the rise.

Contact
Katalin Halász,
Author of the Europe chapter,
T: +36 30936 9745
E: halasz@gmail.com

Kenya: Nubians – poverty, deprivation and statelessness

The Nubian community has been present in Kenya for about 100 years. Many live in harsh conditions
of poverty and deprivation in the Kibera slum in Nairobi. Before 2009, when Nubians were finally
recognized in the national population census process, to be a Nubian and a Muslim in Kenya amounted to membership of a non-Kenyan identity. Despite this recognition, however, they continue to suffer from citizenship-based discrimination. The bulk of Nubians experience obstacles to their application for citizenship in Kenya immediately upon disclosing their names, most of which are Arab and identify them as Muslim. Such designation instantly results in more documentary evidence being required to sustain an individual’s citizenship claim.

Contact:
Adam Hussein Adam,
Open Society Kenya,
Kenya
E: ahussein@osiea.org or adamhusse@gmail.com
T: +254 722649024 or +254 715767908

Nigeria: violent clashes between Muslims and Christians

Nigeria’s 140 million people are nearly evenly divided between Christians, who predominate in the south, and Muslims, primarily in the north. In July 2009, four days of rioting was ignited by Boko Haram, an Islamic sect opposed to Western education, medicine and values in northern Nigeria; 800 people (mainly Boko Haram supporters and three Christian pastors) were confirmed killed. The rioting, which initially targeted police and government bases, also led to extensive property losses, including the destruction of government installations. Twenty churches, police stations and prisons were burned before police captured Boko Haram’s leader. He was later killed in detention. The attacks had been in alleged retaliation for the burning of two mosques by Christian groups. The disproportionate use of force by the Nigerian military police against Boko Haram has been criticized, however. This conflict came on the heels of another religious conflict in Jos ignited by political differences. In November 2008, more than 700 people were killed in Jos, the capital of Plateau State, when a political feud over a local election degenerated into bloody confrontation between Christians and Muslims. Violence erupted again in early 2010.

Contact:
Aba Ahola Ejembi,
Civil Liberties Organisation,
Nigeria.
T: +234-803 327 9014 or +234 – 9- 6709044
E: abejembi@yahoo.com

Hindus increasingly attacked and persecuted in Bangladesh

In 2009, a total of 541 incidents affecting religious minorities were reported in Bangadesh by MRG’s partner organisation Odhikar. These include assaults, land seizures and one killing.
There were also 27 attacks on places of worship during the year, most of them instigated by local gangs or political leaders who acted in a climate of impunity, with police taking no action over the incidents.

One of the groups specifically targeted in the attacks is the country’s Hindu minority. According to Odhikar, in February 2009, 300 Hindus were injured and one woman raped in Maheshkhali, Chittagong, when gangs attacked a religious event. In March and April 2009, mainly Hindus were affected when gangs forced some 400 people from their homes in the Sutrapur district of Dhaka. In both places, Hindu temples were destroyed.

Supporters or members of the ruling Awami League have been accused of being involved in almost all of the attacks against Hindus. In September 2009, Awami League members fired gunshots and evicted Hindus from their homes, again in Sutrapur. In that incident and others during the month of September, a total of 14 temples were reportedly attacked.
Targeted gender violence is an integral part of the attacks against religious minorities. One of the two reported rape cases targeted against religious minority women, in 2009 involved a Hindu woman in the incident in Chittagong in February.

Contact
Adilur Rahman Khan,
Secretary of Odhikar,
Bangladesh.
Mobile: +88-01711-405-188
Email: odhikar.bd@gmail.com or odhikar@sparkbd.net

Counter-terrorism measures target Muslims in India

The situation for Muslims in some parts of India remains tense. Particularly since the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Indian government has used counterterrorism measures to arrest and detain large numbers of Muslims arbitrarily. In 2009, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights urged India to counter suspicion against Muslims in the country and warned that anti-terrorism laws threatened human rights.

In January 2009, thousands of people took to the streets to protest against the imprisonment and killing of two Muslims accused of being terrorists. The protesters were demanding a judicial investigation into the killings. Many of the protesters said that several Muslim youths had been arrested on minimal evidence in Uttar Pradesh on suspicion of terrorist links. After the Mumbai attacks, the government rushed through new laws, allowing police to hold suspects for up to 180 days without charge.

In April 2009, the Indian Supreme Court rejected a plea by a Muslim student who had been expelled from a Christian missionary school in Madhya Pradesh for refusing to shave off his beard. The presiding judge ruled that it was against India’s secularism and associated sporting a beard with terrorism and extremist values.

Contact
Irfan Engineer,
Director,
Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS).
India
T: +919869462833; +919867027267
E: irfansan@hotmail.com; irfanengi@gmail.com

Americas: religious intolerance towards indigenous American earth-based belief systems

Throughout the approximately 500-year history of state formation in the Americas, religious thinking has been a key factor in the region’s evolution. European colonial expansion into the Americas was a religious project, sanctioned and directed by the Church hierarchy and highly intolerant to traditional indigenous and African belief systems. Religious communities such as Puritan Protestants were also among the first settlers in the continental United States and the eastern Caribbean. In 2009, indigenous activists in Bolivia and the United States have continued to argue that it is the workings of these doctrines and belief systems in the contemporary secular context that still constrain indigenous peoples and African descendants’ efforts to control their natural resources, and to preserve traditional cultures, lands and lives. At the December 2009 Parliament of the World’s Religions, indigenous peoples’ representatives claimed that it is such contemporary practices that demonstrate a direct historical connection to the doctrines of conquest, prompting them to call collectively on religious leaders, such as Pope Benedict XVI, to repudiate the Doctrine of Discovery.

Contact:
Maurice Bryan, author of the Americas chapter, State of the World’s Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2010
T: +503 77667881 / +504 5663199
E: maurice.bryan@mrgmail.org

Canada: balancing women’s rights with freedom of religion

Sometimes the perceived importance of ensuring religious freedom is so strong it can overshadow the need to preserve other rights. For many women from religious minorities around the world, this is a common experience. Using women’s rights as a baseline indicator helps us judge whether countries are able to provide for the needs of religious minorities at a sophisticated enough level that women from religious minorities benefit equally – as both belonging to religious minorities and as women. In the last few years, Canada grappled with the question of whether and how Sharia courts can be incorporated into the laws of the land. Whilst some Muslim women may have wanted to use non-mainstream legal options such as Sharia courts to resolve their concerns, others, such as the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, organized against the introduction of Sharia law.

Contact:
Alia Hogben,
Executive Director,
Canadian Council of Muslim Women.
T: +613-3822847
E: aliahogben@gmail.com

A Christian Nation: But Which Christianity? from Jeff Huett on Vimeo.

Mercer University President William D. Underwood delivers the keynote address at the 2010 Religious Liberty Council Luncheon in Charlotte, North Carolina.

(Read more at BJCOnline.org)

This is an analysis of the courtroom proceedings in Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the August 4, 2010 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker upholding the right of same-sex couples to marry and not an analysis of the moral reasoning behind either position.

Summary

In short, Judge Walker ruled based on the evidence presented, as any trial judge should, and regardless of his own personal sexual orientation or biases, Prop 8 supporters simply did not make a viable case for themselves. Sloganeering may have won the election but did not win a trial where real evidence was required. Prop 8 supporters may later look at the ruling and claim it was wrongly decided but as this essay points out, the reality is that they did a poor job presenting their evidence and only put two witnesses on the stand, both of whom had previously written statements that contradicted their testimony in favor of Prop 8. When both of these witnesses were neutralized, Prop 8 advocates had nothing left with which to prove their case and any effort by any judge to add in facts to uphold Prop 8 would have been the very definition of judicial activism.

How Prop 8 Became Law

In May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state constitution and thousands of same-sex couples were married. In November 2008, by a vote of 52% to 48% California voters passed Proposition 8 ( “Prop 8″ ) a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.

This constitutional amendment was argued before the California Supreme Court. At oral argument in March 2009, the court asked Ken Starr, lead counsel in favor of Prop 8, whether there was any limitation to what the people could do.

Speaking of the state constitution, Starr replied, “The right of the people is inalienable to change their constitution through the amendment process. The people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things, and things that tug at the equality principle.”

Despite the vast implications of Starr’s statement, the court found itself powerless to overturn Prop 8.

The Question Before the Court

When David Boies and Theodore Olson brought suit against Prop 8 in Federal Court alleging that the equality principle of the Federal Constitution was violated when the people of California took away the existing right to marry, the argument focused on a simple question, “Is there a compelling state reason, or even a rational basis, for California to prohibit same-sex marriage?”

During the run-up to the November 2008, Prop 8 supporters were free to say anything to get votes. They took full advantage of this by portraying a parade of horrors that same-sex marriage would bring and played to gut-level anti-homosexual feelings. They argued that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages. They argued that it would lead to increases in child molestation. They argued that the Bible said homosexuality was wrong and that the state law should mirror the Bible.

But in Federal court, Prop 8 supporters needed to present legal, secular empirical evidence to support the idea that same-sex marriage was such a threat that the government was compelled to put a stop to it. This argument was made more difficult by the fact that a handful of states already approved same-sex marriage.

In this context, personal or religious convictions and moral arguments needed to be backed up with objective facts. Unlike the California Supreme Court, Judge Walker was not beholden to the simple fact that the California constitution had been amended. He was charged with examining the evidence for and against Prop 8 in light of the U.S. Constitution.

The Evidence Presented

As in any trial, the judge would have to make a decision based on the evidence presented. He did not have the luxury of filling in the gaps in the testimony in order to reach a decision in line with his own feelings, which is the hallmark of being an “activist judge.” Rather, he had to rule based on the facts presented, and this is what he did in his lengthy ruling which is available online athttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling

To challenge Prop 8, same-sex marriage advocates brought forward eight lay-witnesses, including two same-sex couples, and nine expert witnesses. The lay-witnesses described their feelings of being discriminated against and the idea that the law was not fair. Expert witnesses testified to various facts and statistics that they said demonstrated that same-sex marriage was not socially harmful. These were the standard arguments that same-sex marriage proponents have been making for years and there really was nothing new or novel.

Same-sex marriage advocates even called Hak-Shing William Tam on the stand in order to demonstrate that voters had been given incorrect information and voted based on anti-homosexual prejudice. Tam’s name had appeared next to the ballot arguments in the voter information pamphlets in the run-up to the November 2008 election. Tam had helped craft many of the arguments for Prop 8 and he testified that, as he stated on his website promoting Prop 8, he believed that homosexuals were 12 times more likely to be pedophiles, but could not state where he got this information.

Tam also admitted he had stated that incest and polygamy had been legalized in the Netherlands soon after the country legalized same-sex marriage in 2001. This was factually untrue. The questioning went like this:

David Boies: “You are saying here that after same-sex marriage was legalized, the Netherlands legalized same incest and polygamy?”

Tam: “Yeah, look at the date, Polygamy happened afterward.”

Boies: “Who told you that? Where did you get that idea?”

Tam: “It’s the Internet. Another person in the organization found it and he showed it to me. . . . I looked at the document and I thought it was true.”

Prop 8 Advocates Presented Only Two Witnesses And Neither Was Consistent Or Credible

Prop 8 supporters cross-examined these pro-same-sex marriage witnesses extensively but despite the large number of people who had promoted Prop 8, Prop supporters only put up two witnesses to defend the Proposition. With so few, Prop 8 defenders should have realized that they needed to put their best foot forward and present overwhelming evidence. Instead, Prop 8 supporters presented weak witnesses who had previously contradicted the pro-Prop 8 position.

David Blankenhorn, the founder and president of the Institute for American Values think tank, was anticipated to be Prop 8’s star witness. Normally expert witnesses need to “qualify” to testify in that capacity, as the court relies on them heavily when making decisions. In this case, Judge Walker allowed Blankenhorn’s testimony to be heard as an expert despite his lack of academic credentials or research and reserved the right to determine later whether he really qualified as an expert.

Blankenhorn gave contradictory testimony that marriage is a “socially-approved sexual relationship between a man and a woman” with a primary purpose to “regulate filiation”; but he also said that it was a “private adult commitment” between a man and a woman.

Blankenhorn wilted when Boies brought forward evidence that Blankenhorn had previously made written statements that Blankenhorn believed that marriage was important and could even benefit gays and lesbians, their children, and society at large. He also admitted a previous statement that same-sex marriage could lead to less sexual promiscuity. Then Blakenhorn shot Prop 8 advocates in the foot when he said that he still believed his previous statement that, “We would be more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than the day before.”

In his decision, Judge Walker found Blakenhorn’s testimony was not credible due to his inconsistent statements. After all, which Blankenhorn was he to believe? Judge Walker spends several pages defending his decision not to give Blankenhorn expert status and to dismiss his testimony as not credible.

Prop 8 proponents’ last best hope was Professor Kenneth P. Miller, an expert in American and California politics at Claremont McKenna College. Miller was expected to testify as an expert that gays and lesbians were not really a downtrodden minority and were not harmed by Prop 8’s disparate treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

Although same-sex marriage advocates objected to his lack of qualifications in the area of same-sex marriage, the court allowed him to testify.

At the trial level, an expert is expected to have a knowledge of materials listed he or she relies on and lists in an “expert report.” Miller testified that his “expertise” in the area was based on materials given to him by the Prop 8 attorneys and that he had only read “most of the materials” and had “tried to review all of them.”

When Miller took the stand, like Blankenhorn, he was trapped by his previous writings that ultimately undermined his argument. In 2001, Miller had written an article in the Santa Clara Law review entitled “Constraining Populism: The Real Challenge of Initiative Reform” in which he wrote that gays and lesbians, like other minorities, are vulnerable and powerless in the initiative process. He also admitted that at least some of those who voted for Prop 8 did so purely out of anti-gay sentiment.

The Decision And Its Aftermath

Given the fact that Judge Walker was dealt this hand, focused same-sex marriage advocates and two scattered Prop 8 witnesses this outcome was inevitable. Had they presented a solid case, some element of bias might be taken into account, but they presented such a sad defense of Prop 8 that a ruling in their favor would have required the judge to admit objective facts that they did not bring forward.

Predictably, despite the inexcusably poor showing by Prop 8, the religious right is painting Judge Walker as an “activist judge” who “ruled from the bench.” We are even seeing arguments that Prop 8 should have never been brought to trial and that the “will of the voters” should have prevailed.

The Prop 8 defense was fundamentally ineffective and was unable to explain why in any way it was necessary to take away same-sex marriage rights in order to protect a compelling state interest. They even failed to demonstrate that there was a rational basis for Prop 8.

Despite the deficit in Prop 8 advocacy, Judge Walker clearly spent a great deal of time considering the matter and writing an airtight decision that will be incredibly difficult to refute on appeal.

The question remains as to whether Prop 8 supporters will cut their losses now and allow California to join a handful of states where gay marriage is legal or whether they will appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court which could nationalize same-sex marriage.

###

For further reading see:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2009/03/16/raw_majority_power_why_check…

http://spectrummagazine.org/node/1981

“We’ve come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That’s what makes New York special and different and strong.

“Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it’s sustained by immigrants — by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That’s life. And it’s part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.

“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here — in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance — was hard-won over many years.

“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend — not to extend — landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

“On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ (Bloomberg’s voice cracks here a little as he gets choked up.) ‘What beliefs do you hold?’

“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.

“Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city.

“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.”

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/08/bloomberg-stands-up-for-mosque.html#ixzz0vb0sShlY

EXCERPT:

The date was June 5, 1917, the first day of the draft. Sousa’s Band struck up “Stars and Stripes Forever” and the 6,000 in attendance at the American Medical Association Convention in New York City rose to their feet as former president Theodore Roosevelt walked across the stage.

The United States had tried to avoid war, but the German U-boats kept a relentless attack on American interests at sea. In a complicated scenario the British were fearful that the anticolonialist Americans would enter on the side of the Central Powers, and there were rumors that Germany would enlist Mexico to join Japan in fighting the United States in return for Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.

President Wilson, who won the presidency on the promise of keeping America out of the war, quietly began arming some American merchant ships, and Germany sunk several, an act that former president Roosevelt denounced as piracy. Roosevelt insisted on war, and on April 6, 1917, Congress declared war.

Once at the podium, Roosevelt ripped into those who did not support the draft for moral reasons. “The conscientious objector,” he said, “curtains his cowardice behind the statement that he objects to placing himself in a position where he might take part in killing someone. I’d guard his conscience. I’d send him to the front, but I wouldn’t give him a gun. I’d put him to digging kitchen sinks and trenches so that good men could rest until the time came for them to kill someone. Then I’d watch his conscience to see what it would do.”

Read the Full Article at http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1636

The Obama administration has talked much about increased engagement and improved outreach abroad. But it has neglected to offer effective support for one of the most important human rights, religious liberty. The dilatory nomination of Dr. Cook as Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a start. Much more remains to be done, however. It would be tragic if the president who has done so much to raise expectations of America around the world did not use his popularity to encourage greater respect for religious liberty abroad.

LINK: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/promoting-religious-liber_b_641534.html

EXCERPT:

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. One glaring weaknesses of the modern law on religious freedom is that it turns a blind eye toward neutral rules with a disparate impact on members of minority groups. That is why Justice Scalia was wrong in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith to hold that a general ban on the use of peyote could apply with equal force to its use in religious rites by members of the Native American Church. The far better approach is to allow for an accommodation of its use in religious settings that need not extend to recreational use of the same drug. First Amendment speech cases often follow the same view. The state can punish the burning of draft cards and need not make an exception for draft protestors.

I regard this approach as too narrow for both religion and speech. So even if Hastings’ antidiscrimination norm is neutral on its face, its impact on a religious group is not. In dealing with associational freedoms generally, the Supreme Court has recognized that the ability to choose your members is critical to your ability to maintain group identity. I

LINK:  http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/28/religion-speech-legal-supreme-court-opinions-columnists-richard-a-epstein.html?boxes=financechannelforbes

CNN – The Supreme Court has ruled against a Christian campus group that sued after a California law school denied it official recognition because the student organization limits its core membership to those who share its beliefs on faith and marriage.

At issue was the conflict between a public university’s anti-discrimination policies and a private group’s freedom of religion and association.

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.” He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/28/us.scotus.religious.group/index.html

Charlotte, NC (WSOC) – A secularist billboard on the Billy Graham Parkway was vandalized over the weekend.The billboard, which was paid for by the The North Carolina Secular Association, shows an American flag and the words “One Nation, Indivisible.”

Over the weekend, someone spray-painted the words “under God” on the billboard.Police were notified and are reviewing surveillance video from a nearby gas station, according to the NC Secular Association.

“This act shows just how needed our message is,” Joseph Stewart, founder of the NC Secular Association, said in a release. “Inserting ‘under God’ on our billboard is like inserting it into the original Pledge in 1954: it divides us as a nation. Our sign doesn’t say ‘One nation under no God’; it is inclusive. It says ‘One Nation Indivisible.’”

CLICK HERE TO SEE A PHOTO AND READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://www.wsoctv.com/news/24068030/detail.html#

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN – While researching my prior post about Nikki Haley coming under attack by her fellow South Carolina Republicans for her Sikh heritage, I came across a local activist, Oran Smith of the Palmetto Family Council, who told CNN, “Most people can’t even pronounce ‘Sikh,’ even the ones that are criticizing her.”

For the record, the word Sikh rhymes with click. But knowing how to pronounce Sikhism won’t take you very far toward understanding whether this religious tradition is something that voters in South Carolina should fear and candidates in South Carolina should flee. So what are Sikhs and Sikhism all about? To answer that question, I contacted Gurinder Singh Mann, who occupies an endowed chair in Sikh Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Mann, one of the world’s foremost authorities on Sikhism (and himself a Sikh), took time out from a conference he was attending at Lund University, Sweden, to tell me this:

“Belonging to a five-century-old monotheistic tradition, the Sikhs lay emphasis on a life of hard work, social commitment, and ethical living. A complex set of doctrinal, historical and sociological reasons made them a very political people and they have kept up that heritage in both the Punjab, the land of their origin, and wherever they have migrated to in the past century. Nikki Haley may well be the latest episode in this saga: you carry on your politics and change the religion if need be.”

READ THE FULL ARTICLE: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/22/nikki-haley-provokes-question-whats-sikhism/