Articles Tagged ‘Religious Freedom’

Albuquerque, NM—The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico sent a letter today to Bernalillo County Sheriff Dan Houston protesting plans to hold the only graduation ceremony for new County deputies at Legacy Church in Albuquerque.  The ceremony will take place at 1:30 PM this Friday, August 26 at the church located on Central Avenue NW.  According to biographical information posted on the County’s website, Houston worked as Legacy Church’s director of security “for several years” before becoming County Sheriff.  Like Houston, BCSO Captain Scott Baird also is a member of the Legacy Church.

“Government officials should not use their official positions to promote their personal religious beliefs,” said ACLU Executive Director Peter Simonson.  “Sheriff Houston evidently has a close relationship with Legacy Church.  If he wants to encourage people to follow his faith, he should do it outside of the work context and should not use the authority of his position to require new deputies to attend the only official graduation ceremony in his place of worship.”

The ACLU’s letter cites multiple legal cases in which courts held that no government entity “can force [or] influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will.”  The letter ends with the request that Sheriff Houston identify a new, non-religious location for the August 26^th graduation ceremony.

Simonson said, “It is hard to believe that there were no non-religious sites available to hold this event.  Why put the County in the position of discriminating among different faiths?  Inevitably the Sheriff is going to alienate some deputies and their families who do not subscribe to his particular religious beliefs and cause them to fear retaliation if they voice their concerns to their new bosses.”

CONTACT: Peter Simonson, Executive Director,             (505) 266-5915       Ext. 1002, psimonson@aclu-nm.org

BLOOMFIELD, NM – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request with the City of Bloomfield, NM, requesting records regarding the city’s planned Ten Commandments monument. The monument, soon to be installed in front of the city hall, may violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the government from establishing or endorsing religious beliefs. Through this IRPA request, the ACLU of New Mexico seeks to determine whether the City of Bloomfield chose to erect this monument for a religious purpose.

“Religious freedom thrives when the government stays out of religion and does not endorse one faith over another,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Matters of religious belief should be left to individuals, families and faith communities, not to governments or political majorities.”

Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment prohibits the government from promoting one religion over another, or even showing preference between religion and non-religion. In many cases, monuments on public property featuring the Ten Commandments have been ruled as unconstitutional.

As recently as 2009, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the Haskell County, Oklahoma to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the county courthouse grounds, saying that a “reasonable observer” would conclude that the monument was an endorsement of religion. The county’s defense of the monument cost local taxpayers $200,000 in legal fees.

“Which version of the Ten Commandments will the City of Bloomfield choose to endorse?” questioned ACLU-NM Staff Attorney Leon Howard. “Catholic? Protestant? Hebraic? The versions are all different. The City can’t erect the monument without snubbing one religious faith or another.”

Read the IPRA request here: Bloomfield IPRA Request

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 22, 2011

CONTACT: Micah McCoy (505) 266-5915 x.1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

###

Sahaj Khalsa

ESPAÑOLA, NM – Today, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico filed charges with the New Mexico Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Española Hospital and Presbyterian Health Services for fostering a work environment rife with religious discrimination and failing to take reasonable measures to rectify the situation. Plaintiff Sahaj Khalsa, an adherent to the Sikh religion, alleges that while employed as a paramedic at Española Hospital, coworkers and hospital administration actively discriminated against Khalsa because of his religion, making disparaging remarks, threats and, in one incident, physically assaulting him.

He further alleges that hospital human resources staff made no meaningful attempt to curtail this religiously motivated harassment.

“Religious tolerance and accommodation are core American values,” said ACLU of New Mexico Managing Attorney Laura Schauer Ives. “Discriminating against an employee because of his or her faith is not just illegal; it’s wrong. It goes against everything we stand for as Americans.”

Sahaj Khalsa is a practicing Sikh, was born into the religion, and has maintained all of the tenets of the faith since birth. One of the tenets of Sikhism is maintaining uncut beards and hair, which is tied up in a turban.

Khalsa was employed by Presbyterian Health Services (PHS) as a Paramedic and Field Operations Supervisor for nine years from 2001 to 2010. During this time, Khalsa maintained an exemplary work record and provided excellent care to people in need. However, beginning in 2008 the working environment at Española Hospital became progressively hostile to Khalsa and other observant Sikh employees.

When Khalsa reported this discrimination to the hospital human resource office, they acknowledged the hostile work environment, but failed to discipline those responsible. Instead, hospital administration targeted Mr. Khalsa by suddenly implemented a no-beards policy in retaliation for his complaints, telling Khalsa he must either shave or lose his job. Khalsa suggested a reasonable compromise, offering to wear a larger respirator that would cover his facial hair while he administered aid, but this accommodation was refused without justification.

Hospital administration continued this pattern of discrimination and retaliation until Khalsa was forced to the conclusion that PHS had no intention of making reasonable accommodations for his sincerely-held religious beliefs as required by law. He also concluded that PHS had no interest in truly addressing the toxic environment of workplace discrimination. Having exhausted every reasonable option, Khalsa was forced to resign in December 2010.

“All I wanted was do my job helping people in my community get the urgent medical care they needed,” said Khalsa. “My Sikh religion did not prevent me from performing that job, but the prejudice of my supervisors did.”

The ACLU of New Mexico is demanding that Española Hospital and Presbyterian Health Services compensate the plaintiff for lost wages and emotional stress caused by the extraordinary religious discrimination he suffered at their hands.

Read Sahaj Khalsa’s full affidavit: Sahaj EEOC affidavit

CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 Ext. 1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

###

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

We face an epidemic here in the United States: a widespread and wholesale vilification of Americans who are followers of Islam. We see it on the cable news networks, in vitriolic opposition to the construction of mosques in our communities, and now, this week with a full blown Homeland Security Committee hearing on the “radicalization of American Muslims.”

To be fair, there is evidence of growing radicalization in some communities in America, and if there is credible threat that this radicalization could lead to terrorist attacks, then it should be investigated. However, the singling out of Muslims and the inflamed rhetoric surrounding the investigation have led some commentators to draw comparisons to the McCarthy Era witch hunts. Indeed, if this investigation was truly concerned with terrorism, perhaps the Homeland Security Committee would broaden the scope of its investigation to include potentially dangerous non-Muslim radical groups—the Hutaree “Christian” Militia that plotted to systematically murder Michigan police officers last year springs to mind. And let’s not forget that the worst pre-9/11 terrorist attack on U.S. soil was perpetrated by a Christian named Timothy McVeigh.
Too often in our history we have fallen prey to loud voices defaming an entire group of Americans as an existential threat to our way of life. Invariably, we look back on these moments in profound shame.

Unfortunately, we have these same loud voices here in New Mexico. This legislative session, Sen. Rod Adair (R-Roswell) introduced Senate Joint Resolution 18 (SJR 18), a bill that, among other things, prohibits “New Mexico courts from considering or applying Sharia law.”

For those who are unfamiliar, Sharia is a collection of Islamic principles observed by some individual Muslims and held as law by a handful of foreign governments. There are several different versions of Sharia as well as varied interpretations of the law within the Muslim community itself.

New Mexico is not the only state that saw bills similar to SJR 18 introduced; in the past year 13 states considered laws that would prohibit courts from enforcing Sharia law. One proposed law in Tennessee would make it a felony to follow some versions of Sharia. Last year in Oklahoma, both the state senate and house passed a similar measure—the comically hyperbolic “Save Our State” amendment—which a federal court struck down as unconstitutional.

Do supporters of these laws truly fear a creeping “Islamification” of the United States? Do they aim to protect us from the time when we start chopping the hands off shop lifters and stoning adulterous women in Civic Plaza?

Serious-minded people recognize that this is about as likely as New Mexico courts sentencing someone to death for wearing clothing of mixed fibers (Leviticus 19:19) or gathering firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36).

No, the real reason for introducing SJR 18 and bills like it is to target Muslims as a group, to marginalize and stigmatize the people of an entire faith community. In the words of Oklahoma activist Muneer Awad, these amendments would “enshrine disapproval of Islam into the state constitution.”

But the First Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that congress can make no law that establishes a state religion or creates an excessive government entanglement with religion. U.S. courts are permitted to honor agreements between individuals made under religious law, but never when that law is in conflict with the secular laws of the land.

So in this season of inflamed anti-Muslim rhetoric, let’s tune out the demagogues and quietly meditate on just how remarkable the country we live in is. It is a country that guarantees free exercise of religion so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others—something that religious minorities in other parts of the world only dream of.

Just because some people choose to use their freedom of speech to loudly demonize their neighbors, it doesn’t mean we have to listen.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Over the next few days, the booklet Protecting Religious Liberty in Public Schools: A School Official’s Guide will arrive in the mailbox of every public school principal and superintendent in New Mexico.  The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico (ACLU-NM) developed this booklet as a comprehensive yet easy-to-use resource for schools to protect religious freedom while maintaining clear separation of church and state.

“Every school year, the ACLU responds to complaints from parents about violations of their children’s religious freedom in public schools,” said ACLU-NM Executive Director Peter Simonson. “Religion poses tricky questions in the public school/charter school setting. On the one hand, schools must avoid any endorsement of religion and, on the other, they must guarantee students’ private right to practice their faith. Schools must also accommodate students’ free speech rights concerning religion and belief while preventing disputes that substantially disrupt the educational process.”

Jonathan Wilks, Dean of School and Student Life at Amy Beihl High School in Albuquerque, received an advance copy of Protecting Religious Liberty and says that he almost immediately found the booklet useful:

“The booklet is remarkable for its clarity and its fairness of perspective. It was fortuitous that “Protecting Religious Liberty” arrived on my desk when it did.  I had just been reviewing a request from a group of our students who were seeking permission to form a lunch time Bible Study meeting at our public high school, and the ACLU’s booklet was instrumental in helping me understand our school’s Constitutional obligation [permitting the group to form] to these students.”

Further compounding the complexity of this issue, there is seventy years of case law concerning religion and public schools to navigate. These decisions, ranging from school prayer to religious diet accommodations in the cafeteria, address different intricacies in the balancing act between maximizing student religious freedom while preventing state establishment of religion.

Some of the topics covered in the booklet include:

• Prayer at athletic events and graduation ceremonies;
• Intelligent design and evolution theory;
• Christmas and religious holidays;
• The Pledge of Allegiance; and
• Student religious clubs.

The booklet is also available online in PDF format: Religious Liberty in Public Schools: A School Official’s Guide.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 13, 2010

PRESS CONTACT: Micah McCoy, (505) 266-5915 Ext. 1003 or mmccoy@aclu-nm.org

###