RFRA in Florida

Click here to write your rep about this issue

Summary of HB 401 currently before the Florida legislature: Groups can be exempt from the laws that others must follow IF they say they have an objection to the law based on a moral conviction.

What if the person’s moral compass has lost direction? What if the person’s moral conviction is advocating for an act that will harm or deny benefits to OTHERS?

Quote from this Link to what AU is saying about RFRA : The federal RFRA was meant to be a shield to safeguard religious freedom, not a sword to be used to harm others. Because people and corporations have been trying to use RFRA in recent years as a way to take away the rights of someone else, however, AU believes RFRA must be fixed.

Link to current Florida RFRA

Link to an article about the bill seeking to expand RFRA in Florida

Link to proposed bill that will expand RFRA in Florida

Why do we want laws on the books that exempt some groups? Why not fair play? If the law or rule isn’t worthwhile, why do any of us have to follow it? Simple example: If you want to allow hijabs in the work place, then allow everyone to wear a hat or other head garment. Why not? What’s the harm? It is just a hat or scarf.

Quote from Marci Hamilton’s book God vs. The Gavel: At the same time, Schools must guard against enforcing their dress codes unevenly. If the school is willing to wink at the kid wearing a hat for fun, it cannot then punish the girl who shows up In a hijab.

There should be a different level of scrunity when your behavior harms or deprives others of benefits that most other people receive. IF you don’t want to fill prescriptions for birth control because you have a moral conviction against birth control then don’t become a pharmacist. If you don’t want to serve alcohol because of your moral convictions, then don’t apply for a job that includes that as part of the job duties. If you don’t want to marry people that don’t follow your own moral convictions, then don’t apply for a job that includes issuing marriage licenses as part of the job duties.

I am a feminist. Equal rights. BUT I don’t think that should mean that a woman who can’t do heavy lifting should apply for a job that requires heavy lifting then ask for an exemption. Please don’t misinterpret me. I know plenty of women can do heavy lifting. All I am trying to say is that IF your job conflicts with your moral convictions, then get another job. Am I wrong? If so, please tell me why.

I understand as a country that we are afraid of others persecuting us for our beliefs. That feeling makes us passionate about the religious liberty (or freedom of conscious) clause in the First Amendment. I am passionate about that also. BUT there is a limit. You shouldn’t be able to use it to harm others or deny others benefits.

Marci Hamilton in her article states: “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) has allowed religious accommodation to harm too many affected by the believers’ conduct.”

If someone else’s religion scares you, then shouldn’t you fight for stronger church/state separation? Shouldn’t you fight to make sure everyone follows the laws that are designed to protect the people?

Please know WHY RFRA needs to be fixed so that it is not used to harm or deprive others of benefits that most people are free to enjoy. Read one of Marci Hamilton’s books about the issue. She gives lots of examples.

Link to New York Times article written by Marci Hamilton

Perhaps because the First Amendment is so vague, we need some form of RFRA BUT it shouldn’t be used to harm people. It should be used for the government to encourage individuals to be more loving and STOP discriminating based on sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation. Marci gives an example of a child not being allowed to wear the Star of David but other kids being able to wear a cross at school. Rather than treating different religions differently, the school could have taken the opportunity to talk about the First Amendment and the desire of the founders of our country to escape from religious persecution so prevalent at the time our country was founded

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Church/State Separation

Excerpts from the article:
Public reaction to Gobitis v. Minersville School District bordered on hysteria ….. Some vigilantes interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision as a signal that Jehovah’s Witnesses were traitors who might be linked to a network of Nazi spies and saboteurs. In Imperial, a town outside Pittsburgh, a mob descended on a small group of Witnesses and pummeled them mercilessly. By the end of the year, the American Civil Liberties Union estimated that 1,500 Witnesses had been assaulted in 335 separate attacks. In the wake of all the violence against Witnesses, three Supreme Court justices—William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy and Hugo Black—publicly signaled in a separate case that they thought Gobitis had been “wrongly decided.” When Barnette reached the Supreme Court in 1943, Harlan Stone, the lone dissenter in Gobitis, had risen to chief justice. The facts of the two cases mirrored each other, but the outcome differed dramatically. Most important, in ruling that Witness children could not be forced to recite the pledge. The “very purpose” of the Bill of Rights, wrote Justice Robert Jackson, was to protect some issues from the majority rule of politics. “One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, may not be submitted to vote….Fundamental rights depend on the outcome of no elections.”

You can find the whole article here:
http://www.historynet.com/what-we-owe-jehovahs-witnesses.htm

What does “free exercise thereof” mean?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here is the “free exercise thereof” explained:

all religions

I am not sure it’s that simple BUT it is a cute photo. How do we reconcile it when the religious views clash?

John Stuart Mill quote

Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale. In the minds of almost all religious persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the duty of toleration is admitted with tacit reserves. One person will bear with dissent in matters of church government, but not of dogma; another can tolerate everybody, short of a Papist or an Unitarian; another, every one who believes in revealed religion; a few extend their charity a little further, but stop at the belief in a God and in a future state. Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed.

You can find the complete essay at the link: http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm

Operation Inclusion

Link to AU about operation inclusion

Forward from the First Coast Freethought Society

There is and has been a lot of buzz and discussion going on in and around the City of Jacksonville to get the Human Rights Ordinance amended to include the LGBT folks. Jacksonville’s struggle over the HRO was even featured in the New York Times. New York Times article at this LINK

I know we have and will continue to support this needed amendment to the HRO.

There is another area where the City of Jacksonville has been less than inclusive: invocations at City Council meetings. The First Coast Freethought Society is gearing up to get a freethinker into the rotation to give an invocation at a City Council meeting. The FCFS needs the support of all of the Humanist/Atheist/Agnostic/Freethought/Skeptic organizations in the city to make this happen. Please send the letter I have included below to the Jacksonville City Council. If the City Council receives lots of requests for a freethinker to give an invocation at one of the City Council meetings, it will be a lot easier to get a freethinker on the calendar and in the rotation to give an invocation.

HERE is what AU has said about atheists giving invocations at city council meetings.

The buzz and discussion about inclusiveness is a giant wave going through the City of Jacksonville. We need to ride that wave right into the City Council chambers. I urge you to please send the below letter to the City Council and please urge others to do the same.
Thanks,
Earl Coggins
President of First Coast Freethought Society, Inc
And
Loyal member of Americans United for Separation of Church and State

[your name and address]

[date]

Councilman Jim Love
Office of the City Council
117 W. Duval St., Suite 425
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Re: Invocation Request

To the Honorable Jim Love:

There are several humanist/freethought/non-religious organizations in the City of Jacksonville, including The First Coast Freethought Society (FCFS). FCFS is a local educational organization with approximately one hundred dues paying members. FCFS has been in existence since 1998. One of the FCFS’s objectives is to educate the public about the need for inclusiveness,including the non-religious members of our community.

In the recent Supreme Court decision, Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court emphasized that a government’s prayer practice must be “nondiscriminatory” and it must make reasonable efforts to include invocations from all members of the community, regardless of their faith. In fact, the completely open selection process was crucial to the prayers being upheld: “The town at no point excluded or denied an opportunity to a would-be prayer giver. Its leaders maintained that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation.” (Town of Greece, N.Y. v. Galloway, 12-696, 2014 WL 1757828 (U.S. May 5, 2014)) Therefore, excluding a particular faith group from consideration is unconstitutional. (Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263, 1276 (11th Cir. 2008)).

In light of these facts, it is clear that local government meetings should include Humanist/Atheist/Agnostic invocations as well as those from any other religious minorities. I respectfully request that you give the FCFS the opportunity to offer invocations at your meetings. Earl Coggins has submitted the official request that a member of the FCFS be included in the rotation of invocation speakers.

The number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing. The percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” is 22.8% according to this article at pewforum.org

With 22.8% of the U.S. population identifying themselves as unaffiliated with any religion, the FCFS’s request presents an opportunity for the Jacksonville City Council to demonstrate that it seeks to celebrate diversity with its actions and does not discriminate on the basis of religion. Additionally, you will be providing your Humanist and other non-religious constituents with a voice and an equal opportunity to be included in the ceremonial portion of business meetings on a regular basis.

Sincerely,

Article by Rabbi Shapiro

An article by

Rabbi Merrill Shapiro

By the time you read this, it is likely that Rabbi Merrill Shapiro will have completed his third three-year term as President of the Board of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of Church and State’s National Board of Trustees. He will revert to being just a regular Trustee, one of 15 that guide the watchdog protecting the First Amendment rights of all the citizens of these United States. He will be replaced as President of the Board of Trustees by Reverend Neal Jones of the Universalist Unitarian Church of Devon, Pennsylvania.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, AU for short, is different from organizations like the Freedom From Religion Foundation in that it recognizes the power of those people of faith who share the dismay of freethinkers everywhere when the Religious Right feels that it has a role in shaping the policies of our government, a government we pay for, a government “of, by and for the people!”

Most recently, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has launched Protect Thy Neighbor because we are seeing more and more attempts to use religion to discriminate and deny people their rights. For years we have been working in the courts, legislatures, and on the ground to oppose these attempts to abuse religious freedom. With Protect Thy Neighbor, we are devoting even more resources to win this fight. We are expanding our work in the state legislatures, Congress, and the courts so that no one is allowed to use religion as an excuse to refuse you service, deny you healthcare, or threaten your safety. We are protecting our neighbors.

Click here for more info about Protect Thy Neighbor

Kirkman-Handle

Melissa Ross’s article from politicsflorida.com

Here is a great article about the issue from politicsflorida.com:

EMAIL INSIGHTS: SECTARIAN PRAYER ISSUE FLARES UP AGAIN AT JAX CITY COUNCIL
April 29, 2015
By Melissa Ross

He hasn’t even been sworn in yet, but incoming Jacksonville City
Council President Greg Anderson is already experiencing the headaches
of leadership.

Susan Aertker has emailed Anderson to ask him to (once again) change
the rules about Council meetings and sectarian vs. inclusive prayers
during the invocation.

Under outgoing City Council President Clay Yarborough, the invocation
period has always been a Christian prayer. This practice has long
been controversial in Jacksonville, which has Bible Belt roots but in
the 21st century, has become increasingly diverse. And the matter
flares up time and again -depending on who leads the Council.

Writes Aertker, “Based on Yarborough’s words in interviews and based
on the fact that the two people that have given the invocation at the
city council meetings since Yarborough became council president said
“in Jesus’ name, we pray”, one can conclude that Yarborough will only
let people (that agree to say those words) give the invocation. In my
view Yarborough is proselytizing his own particular faith by requiring
that “in Jesus’ name we pray” be said at council meetings. I believe
that violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the
ruling in Greece v. Galloway.”

Under former Council President Jack Webb, (and with pressure from the
ACLU) the policy regarding the invocation during City Council meetings
was changed, but it wasn’t binding to future council presidents.

Then as Aertker points out, “After Webb left office, Bill Bishop
became Council President and appointed Yarborough as chaplain. Of
course, Yarborough said “in Jesus’ name we pray” while he was
chaplain. After Bishop, Bill Gulliford became Council President and
he did have some diversity during the invocation period. Gulliford
even had a flute player one time which perhaps represented the
non-religious invocation. Yarborough became Council President after
Gulliford. As Yarborough has said, he only allows people who say “in
Jesus’ name we pray” to give the invocation while he has been Council
President.”

In an interview he gave to the Florida Times-Union Yarborough said he
believed in Christian prayer in public buildings, telling the T-U’s
Mark Woods, “The scripture teaches that unless one prays in the name
of Jesus Christ, and since he is our only way to the Father, that that
is how one should pray. And that is what I believe.”

Aertker closes with a link to au.org/UniteUs petition asking for a
change in invocation rules.

General information and links—invocation at Jacksonville City Council meetings

A variety of information about invocations can be found on the City of Jacksonville website at this LINK

The information included is a 2010 memo detailing the invocation policy which I was told that city council presidents do NOT need to follow:
http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/invocationpolicy.aspx

Also included is a 2014 memo from the city attorney detailing his opinion about the invocation period:

http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/misc/ogc-invocationopinion-2014-09-20.aspx

Here is the petition with over 500 signatures that the NE Florida AU chapter spearheaded:

https://www.change.org/p/sign-our-petition-in-the-name-of-unity

In an interview a couple of years ago, then CM Yarborough was asked about prayers during city council meetings. Here is a link to the interview:

http://jax-cdn.com/opinion/blog/400564/mark-woods/2010-04-17/councilman-takes-turn-answering-questions

That link doesn’t work. Was the article taken down? Here is another article where Yarborough is quoted: http://www.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2010-07-22/story/different-faiths-cast-eager-or-wary-eyes-jacksonville-council-prayers

CM Yarborough mentioned the phrase “in Jesus’ name we pray” in the interview. It appears that Council President Yarborough only invited people to give the invocation that are willing to say that phrase. That seems to me a clear violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. I hear that Yarborough did a lot of good for our city. He was a watch dog against corporations trying to rip us off or so I heard. BUT his desire to establish a theocracy is wrong, isn’t it?

During Council President Yarborough’s reign (July 2014 to June 2015) , only Doyle Carter and Kimberly Daniels gave the invocation during the city council meetings. They both said “in Jesus’ name we pray” during the invocation. Which according to the Greece v. Galloway case is OK as long as other people (from every group in town) are invited to give the invocation

Invocations during prior years

You can find the rule 1.106 which talks about invocations at this link:

http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/councilrules/rules-of-council.aspx

As of May of 2016, Rule 1.106 reads as follows:
RULE 1.106 CHAPLAIN
The President may appoint one Council Member to be Chaplain of the Council, who shall
arrange to open each meeting of the Council with a prayer/invocation. The President or Chaplain may invite or designate others to provide appropriate ceremonies.

When Jack Webb was Council President, the ACLU was set to sue if he didn’t rotate the invocation speakers. Jack Webb complied. Here is the invocation policy that he established (but I was told that future council presidents are not bound by):

http://www.coj.net/city-council/docs/invocationpolicy.aspx

As you can see, the memo is dated in 2010.

BUT when Bill Bishop was Council President, he did very little rotating. See list below. And I think Bill Bishop is one of the good guys.

When Gulliford was council president, he rotated the speakers. Not perfect but better than Bishop. When Yarborough was council president, it appeared that he demanded that “in Jesus’ name we pray” be said during the invocation. Only Doyle Carter and Kimberly Daniels gave the invocation during Yarborough’s reign.

BILL BISHOP—PRESIDENT—2012-2013
Here is the list of who gave the invocations from August 2012 to June 25, 2013:
Aug 15, 2012 CM Yarborough
Aug 28, 2012 Bishop Felipe Estevez
Sept 11, 2012 CM Yarborough
Sept 25, 2012 CM Don Redman
Sept 27, 2012 CM Don Redman
Oct 9, 2012 CM Yarborough
Oct 23, 2012 CM Don Redman
Nov 13, 2013 CM Yarborough
Nov 27, 2012 Rev Michael D. Moore
Dec 11, 2012 CM Yarborough
Jan 8, 2013 CM Yarborough
Jan 22, 2013 CM Yarborough
Feb 13, 2013 CM Yarborough
Feb 26, 2013 CM Yarborough
March 12, 2013 CM Yarborough
March 26, 2013 CM Yarborough
April 9, 2013 CM Yarborough
April 23, 2013 CM Yarborough
May 14, 2013–INVOCATION – Bishop George Davis, Faith Christian Center
May 28, 2013–INVOCATION – Reverend Robert Barton, Westside Baptist Church
June 11, 2013–INVOCATION – Pastor Gene Hodges, First Baptist Church West Jacksonville
June 25, 2013–INVOCATION – Council Member Yarborough