AU Students

The homelessness problem in DC is staggering, and it may get a lot worse, for no other reason than misapplied homophobia. The DC Catholic Church has threatened to punish the tens of thousands of people who use their services as a lifeline. Why? Because homosexual couples want full civil rights.

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington pledged that it will discontinue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law. The Archdiocese claims that the law-to-be infringes on Catholic beliefs against gay marriage, and so maligns its Constitutional ability to discriminate.

I’m having trouble deciding which is worse: Either the Archdiocese is willfully ignoring the actual language of the proposed law (and is grandstanding on its homophobia), or the Archdiocese hasn’t actually read the proposed law and assumes that all things pro-gay rights are dirty, dirty sins.

Assuming someone working for the Archdiocese has actually read the proposed law, they know that the religion exemption in the bill adequately protects religious freedom. Under no circumstances will Catholics be required to perform, accept, engage in, watch, or dance at gay weddings. Nothing in the new bill requires Catholics to change their views, and nothing in it silences them.

But like a child who breaks a toy rather than share it, the Church claims that it must distance itself from all things civic should the proposed law pass. The Church would rather end its charitable functions than let two men (who may have nothing to do with Catholicism) call themselves married.

It’s important to note that Catholic Charities DC, the social service arm of the archdiocese, received $16 million of its $23 million budget last year through governmental contracts. If the Church isn’t willing to spend this money in a non-discriminatory way – if it chooses to punish the District’s destitute who have nothing to do with gay marriage legislation – I’m sure we can find someone else to spend our money.

-NHB

For a closer look at the debate, watch this video featuring AU's Reverend Barry Lynn debating the status of gay rights in Washington DC:

It’s no secret that United States prisons are overcrowded. Per capita, the USA incarcerates more people than any other country – some 756 citizens per 100,000.

What isn’t so frequently discussed is the private prison industry made up of contractors and corporations who make substantial profits by running non-state detention centers. Essentially tax dollars pay rent for the convicted to be housed at these facilities. Proponents claim that privately run prisons alleviate crowding in public prisons and save communities money in the long term. Opponents question the morality of locking up people for money, and cite a disconcerting history of lobbying efforts from the private prison industry on behalf of stricter laws, allegedly to keep their supply of inmates growing.

The ethics of farming out (in some cases literally) our prisoners is certainly an interesting debate, and does not seem immediately within the purview of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. However, new efforts by Corrections Concepts Inc , a Dallas nonprofit prison ministry, have brought the Establishment Clause into the fold.

Wakita, Oklahoma may soon be the home to our nation’s first all-Christian prison, with Christian administrators, employees, counselors, and programs. Bill Robinson, himself an ex-con and founder of Corrections Concepts Inc states that in his new prison, “[inmates] don't have to go to church, or Bible study, but they have to participate in the curriculum, which is Christ-centered.” Mr. Robinson further predicts that his prison complex will open shortly if “Chicken Little doesn’t come to town.”

A’Coodle-doodle doo!

The problem here is not a question of whether or not “Christian values” decrease recidivism or help rehabilitate criminals. In fact, a 2005 study suggests that participating in some religious activity makes inmates, at least, less argumentative with each other.

But that argument’s well above my pay-grade.

Nor, I must allow, is this a question about convicts being forced to pray. Mr. Robinson carefully indicates that inmates would sign an agreement to participate in the program before being sent to Wakita. On the surface, that seems to take care of any worries about coercion.

The real problem here is that local governments would be using the services of an organization that expressly and only hires persons of a certain faith who, Mr. Robinson explains, “being all born-again believers, will see this as a mission.” It is this concept of tax payer-funded missionary work that is troubling.

In 1987 the Supreme Court held that prisoners retain many constitutional rights upon entering prison, among them the rights to marry and uphold their religious beliefs. In 2005 the Court held that even members of blatantly white supremacist sects may not have these rights taken from them. The issue of religious freedom in prisons seems fairly settled, but the legality of a prison founded for the purpose of advancing private faith, though funded by public dollars, remains to be seen.

By sending inmates to a private, presumably more favorable prison, is the state showing preference, in this case leniency, to persons of a specific religious faith? Because public funds will be used to support the Wakita prison, does the separation of persons based on their religion constitute an illegal form of state-approved segregation?

Mr. Robinson says that the American Center for Law and Justice, a major Christian law firm, has agreed to represent his ministry should anyone question the legality of the Wakita Complex. The distinction between state-funded and state-approved prison ministries is complex, but it at least deserves watchful consideration.

- NHB

The 'No On 1' campaign organized to prevent repeal of a newly-signed state law allowing for same-sex marriage fell short after election results showed the repeal narrowly passing 53% to 47%. It was a somewhat surprising result considering that advocates of the law were better organized, had more money, and had spent months working on the issue.

Americans United for Separation of Church & State reached out to Maine members to urge them to vote No On 1. Read more about the elections here.

- AO

On October 28th President Barack Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate-Crimes Prevention Act, which expands the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to include stricter penalties for crimes based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, many in the Religious Right have received this news with a fury of misapplied panic . Opponents of the new law claim that adding federal protection for homosexuals violates the First Amendment rights of religious leaders who choose to preach against what they consider a sinful lifestyle.

Once again, it seems, these people have forgotten the other part of the First Amendment – the Establishment Clause, more commonly referred to as the Separation of Church and State. Even the so-called Matthew Shepard Act allows for complete freedom of religious expression. Nothing has changed.

A pastor can’t be prosecuted unless he or she uses language that would incite someone to an imminent act of violence. This is not the same as preaching against homosexuality. As long as a religious leader doesn’t instigate the physical abuse of a person, no hate crime has been committed. The Supreme Court has been consistent in deciding on this issue and as long as precedent holds, a pastor can speak against homosexuality -- even in very heated terms -- without being charged with a crime.

It seems that there are two possible explanations for the Religious Right’s uproar: Either they are unfamiliar with the parts of the First Amendment that don’t suit their purposes, or their opposition to protecting homosexuals from hate crimes is based in misunderstanding and intolerance.

Regardless of how critics feel, these updates to the 1969 Hate Crimes law represent a national recognition of the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. Though this equality may be disturbing to certain religious sects, their theocratic views must remain separate from Federal law.

-NHB

Religious head coverings will now be permitted in Georgia’s state courtrooms pursuant to a unanimous vote by state court officials. The new policy, drafted by the ACLU of Georgia, was prompted by an incident last December in which a woman was found in contempt of court and made to serve ten days in jail for arguing with an officer upon being asked to remove her headscarf in a municipal courtroom.

ethicsdaily.com: Georgia to Allow Headscarves in Courtrooms