From Alliance Defense Fund:
Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor will join Geneva College President Ken Smith Tuesday at a press conference to announce a new federal lawsuit against the Obama administration’s unconstitutional mandate that religious employers provide abortifacients, sterilization, and contraception to employees regardless of religious or moral objections.
From the testimony of Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Presented before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
For my testimony today, I would like to tell a story. Let’s call it The Parable of the Kosher Deli.
Once upon a time, a new law is proposed, so that any business that serves food must serve pork.
There is a narrow exception for kosher catering halls attached to synagogues, since they serve mostly members of that synagogue, but kosher delicatessens are still subject to the mandate.
The Orthodox Jewish community — whose members run kosher delis and many other restaurants and grocers besides — expresses its outrage at the new government mandate.
And they are joined by others who have no problem eating pork — not just the many Jews who eat pork, but people of all faiths — because these others recognize the threat to the principle of religious liberty.
They recognize as well the practical impact of the damage to that principle.
They know that, if the mandate stands, they might be the next ones forced — under threat of severe government sanction — to violate their most deeply held beliefs, especially their unpopular beliefs.
Meanwhile, those who support the mandate respond, “But pork is good for you.”
It is, after all, the “other white meat.”
Other supporters add, “So many Jews eat pork, and those who don’t should just get with the times.”
Still others say, “Those Orthodox are just trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else.”
But in our hypothetical, those arguments fail in the public debate, because people widely recognize the following:
First, although people may reasonably debate whether pork is good for you, that’s not the question posed by the nationwide pork mandate.
Instead, the mandate generates the question whether people who believe — even if they believe in error — that pork is not good for you should be forced by government to serve pork within their very own institutions. In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.
Second, the fact that some (or even most) Jews eat pork is simply irrelevant. The fact remains that some Jews do not — and they do not out of their most deeply held religious convictions.
Does the fact that large majorities in society — even large majorities within the protesting religious community — reject a particular religious belief make it permissible for the government to weigh in on one side of that dispute? Does it allow government to punish that minority belief with its coercive power?
In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.
Third, the charge that the Orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on others has it exactly backwards.
Again, the question generated by a government mandate is whether the government will impose its belief that eating pork is good on objecting Orthodox Jews.
Meanwhile, there is no imposition at all on the freedom of those who want to eat pork. That is, they are subject to no government interference at all in their choice to eat pork, and pork is ubiquitous and cheap, available at the overwhelming majority of restaurants and grocers.
Indeed, some pork producers and retailers, and even the government itself, are so eager to promote the eating of pork that they sometimes give pork away for free.
In this context, the question is this: Can a customer come to a kosher deli, demand to be served a ham sandwich, and if refused, bring down severe government sanction on the deli?
In a nation committed to religious liberty and diversity, the answer, of course, is: No.
So, in our hypothetical story, because the hypothetical nation is indeed committed to religious liberty and diversity, these arguments carry the day.
In response, those proposing the new law claim to hear and understand the concerns of kosher deli owners and offer them a new “accommodation.”
You are free to call yourself a kosher deli; you are free not to place ham sandwiches on your menu; you are free not to be the person to prepare the sandwich and hand it over the counter to the customer.
But we will force your meat supplier to set up a kiosk on your premises and to offer, prepare and serve ham sandwiches to all of your customers free of charge to them. And when you get your monthly bill from your meat supplier, it will include the cost of any of the “free” ham sandwiches that your customers may accept.
And you will, of course, be required to pay that bill.
Some who supported the deli owners initially began to celebrate the fact that ham sandwiches didn’t need to be on the menu and didn’t need to be prepared or served by the deli itself.
But on closer examination, they noticed three troubling things:
First, all kosher delis will still be forced to pay for the ham sandwiches. Second, many of the kosher delis’ meat suppliers themselves are forbidden in conscience from offering, preparing or serving pork to anyone. Third, there are many kosher delis that are their own meat supplier, so the mandate to offer, prepare and serve the ham sandwich still falls on them.
This story has a happy ending: The government recognized that it is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich; that it is beyond absurd for that private demand to be backed with the coercive power of the state; that it is downright surreal to apply this coercive power when the customer can get the same sandwich cheaply, or even free, just a few doors down.
The question before the United States government — right now — is whether the story of our own church institutions that serve the public, and that are threatened by the HHS mandate, will end happily too.
Will our nation continue to be one committed to religious liberty and diversity?
We urge, in the strongest possible terms, that the answer must be: Yes.
We urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to answer the same way. Thank you for your attention.
From Jennifer Roback Morse at the Ruth Institute, some important facts about the “contraceptive mandate.” It’s much more than that, and it directly threatens our liberty.
http://www.ruthblog.org/2012/02/16/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-the-hhs-mandate-2/
A great victory today in Federal Court in New York. Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jordan Lorence won a temporary restraining order allowing churches and other houses of worship to continue meeting in NYC schools for two more weeks, with hope that a permanent order will allow them to continue to meet going forward. Here is a press release from just minutes ago from NYC Councilman Fernando Cabrera:
***Media Advisory***
PRESS CONFERENCE re: DISTRICT COURT TEMP. RESTRAINING ORDER ALLOWING HOUSES OF WORSHIP TO MEET IN SCHOOLS
WHO: Council Member Fernando Cabrera, Colleagues from NYS Senate & Assembly, City Wide Elected Officials, City Religious Leaders, ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence
WHAT: Press Conference: Federal District Court orders temporary restraining order against the New York City’s Department of Education, houses of worship can continue to meet in schools. Calling State Legislature to action.
WHEN: Friday, Feb. 17, 2012 @ 10:00AM
WHERE: City Hall Steps, New York, NY 10007
****************************************************************
NEW YORK — Press conference will be held tomorrow at the Steps of City Hall regarding court order won today by the Bronx Household of Faith and Jordan Lorence and the Bronx Household of Faith. This court order allows churches to continue meeting for worship services in New York City public schools for the time being.
Text from earlier release:
“Now that the courts have spoken up on the side of fairness,” said Council Member Fernando Cabrera. “I call on the New York State Legislature and Speaker Sheldon Silver to move forward with bills that would rapidly solve this issue.” He continued, “This court order is a fantastic victory and will calm the 60 plus congregations that were frantically searching for space. I commend the US District Court for ruling justly.”
The temporary restraining order is in effect for 10 days while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York more fully considers constitutional arguments about the city’s unique-in-the-nation prohibition on worship services in vacant public school buildings on weekends.
“Churches help communities; evicting churches hurts communities. Empty buildings offer nothing to communities that need hope,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, who argued before the court on Tuesday. “The court’s order is a message of hope for fundamental freedoms in New York City because it means that, for the time being, the city must welcome churches as it does other groups. ADF will continue to fight this battle relentlessly until the city no longer unconstitutionally prohibits activity for purely religious reasons.”
ADF sought the order on Feb. 3 to stop the evictions based on violations of the First Amendment that had not been ruled on previously in the case, Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York. According to the court, it issued the order because “the Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits of their Free Exercise and Establishment Clause claims….”
Many New York City churchgoers have been protesting the city’s plans to evict them ever since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case on free speech grounds on Dec. 5 of last year. A bill that would compel the city’s Department of Education to allow the worship services passed the state senate this month and is awaiting action by the state assembly.
“This order from the court in no way should stop efforts by the New York Legislature to overturn this policy,” Lorence explained. “The courts have consistently ruled that the Constitution does not require New York City to ban religious worship services, so the city or the state legislature is free to repeal the policy.”
##
From LifeNews.com:
A large group of U.S. Congressmen has sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius blasting the administration’s “unprecedented overreach” against the religious freedom of countless Christian schools, hospitals, and charities by forcing them to pay for all contraception, including abortifacients, and sterilizations.
Randy Wenger, Chief Counsel of the Independence Law Center and attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund were in court again this morning here in Pennsylvania fighting for your religious liberty and free speech.
The case involves an elementary school student at the Pocono Mountain School District in Pennsylvania who was told by school officials that she could not invite classmates to a Christmas party at her church. We’ve gone to bat for this little girl, and for the principles involved. Our liberty is at stake.
Sometimes when the government is confronted with the unconstitutional and frankly preposterous nature of their restrictions they quickly back down and change their policies—and no court action is necessary.
Here, Federal Judge Richard Caputo had already ruled once in favor the elementary school student, but the school district pushed back, arguing that they need the power to place restrictions because such invitations can create a “disturbance in the community.” Really?
This is a case where government doesn’t understand its appropriate limits. However, lawyers with the Independence Law Center and Alliance Defense Fund were available for this case—and plan to continue their involvement as long as necessary.
For more information on the work of the Independence Law Center, visit us on the web at
www.independencelawcenter.org.
Great opinion piece by our friends at the Family Research Council:
We applaud the efforts of America’s Catholic leadership in defense of religious liberty. But we do so with a certain measure of consternation. As Evangelical Protestants, we wonder: Why is organized Evangelicalism so silent?
Where is the National Association of Evangelicals?
Where is the (Evangelical) Council for Christian Colleges and Universities?
Where are the editorials and feature articles in Evangelical publications?
Though New York’s same-sex marriage law, passed this June, contains language saying churches won’t be forced to participate, the Rev. Jason McGuire, executive director of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, said it’s “only a matter of time” until an activist tries to create a court case to remove that exemption.
“I officiate some weddings but not others,” he said. “This law does not protect me because I’m not on staff with one local church.
“One pastor I know said, ‘I didn’t need any protection until you passed this law.’ ”
We need a Marriage Protection Amendment here in Pennsylvania to define marriage as husband and wife in our Constitution and to protect religious liberty. Click here to take action!
Update on the Northmoreland Baptist Church Matter—And More!
Thank you for your prayers for the Independence Law Center for the Northmoreland Baptist Church hearing in Wyoming County yesterday. The hearing went well, providing ample opportunity for the pastor of the church to talk about the gospel and their ministry, and we are hopeful for a good outcome. We are also grateful for the partnership in the matter with Lindsey Hoban of Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia. The importance of this case stretches far being Northmoreland Baptist Church. At the hearing were two other churches whose buildings were being taxed hoping for a good outcome here. A favorable decision could save these churches tens of thousands of dollars annually—money that can be spent instead on their gospel mission.
Victory for King’s Men—Men’s Group Sued for Standing Against Pornography
Thank you too for responding to our prayer alert regarding the King’s Men, a group of Christian men that were sued in both state and federal court for holding signs in front of a porn shop and turning men back from the temptations and snares inside the store. Not only was the state court proceeding put on hold (pending the outcome of the federal case), but the federal judge issued a decision yesterday upholding the right of the King’s Men to carry on in their important work. While we will continue defending the King’s Men’s, by God’s grace an important hurdle has been crossed. We are thankful for the partnership with Emily Musser Bell, Jeff Conrad, and Leonard Brown of Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad of Lancaster in this matter.
Elementary Student’s Right to Hand Out Christmas Invitation Upheld
This all comes on the heels of a win late last week in federal court in a case involving an elementary school student at the Pocono Mountain School District who was prohibited by her school from passing out church Christmas party invitations even though secular invitations were permitted. The federal judge issued an order enjoining the school district from applying school policies that would prohibit such religious flyers. In that case we partnered with Matthew Sharp and David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund. Through these partnerships we can stretch the resources you have given us to affect multiple cases in our Commonwealth at any given time.
Thank you for your prayers and for your financial partnership with the Pennsylvania Family Institute and its Independence Law Center. For more information on the law center or to partner with us financially, visit www.independencelawcenter.org.
Prayer Request from Pennsylvania Family Institute:
INDEPENDENCE LAW CENTER IN COURT TODAY DEFENDING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
This morning Randall Wenger, Chief Counsel of our Independence Law Center, and Lindsey Hoban, an allied attorney with Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, are in Common Pleas Court in Wyoming County trying a case on behalf of the Northmoreland Baptist Church.
The church recently built a new facility in order to carry on its Gospel mission more effectively. Wyoming County, however, has assessed property taxes for part of the church’s facility, namely the Fellowship Hall. The county claims that such an area is not entitled to a religious exemption. Through our Independence Law Center, our team of attorneys is providing free legal representation to the church in this case, and to make it clear to the court and the county that the church’s activities, such as vacation Bible school, baptismal classes, Sunday school, and fellowship meals are part of the church’s religious mission and that no part of this church’s property should be taxed.
Throughout our Commonwealth’s history, we have recognized that churches are vital to our communities and should be protected from governmental intrusion. However, there is a current trend to ignore this history and the constitutional protections afforded churches as local government seeks new sources of revenue. We are in court today not only to protect the Northmoreland Baptist Church but also to protect the liberty of churches throughout our Commonwealth. As the late Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall famously stated, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”
Please pray for Randall Wenger and Lindsey Hoban, for the heart of the judge, and for the opportunity that Northmoreland Baptist Church has to testify to their Gospel mission.
Services of the Independence Law Center are provided without cost, thanks to the generous contributions of people like you across Pennsylvania. If you would like to support Pennsylvania Family Institute and the Independence Law Center with a tax-deductible contribution, you may click here to connect to our secure donation page, or you may call us at 1-800-FAMILY-1.
Tom Shaheen’s twitter Michael Geer’s Twitter
