A Baptist minister suing for removal of a Ten Commandments monument at the Oklahoma state capitol won’t get his day in court, a district judge said.

Bruce PrescottBruce Prescott, former executive director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, joined three other taxpayers in a lawsuit last year claiming a privately funded 6-foot-tall granite monument authorized by the legislature in 2009 and placed on the capitol grounds in 2012 violated the state constitution’s ban against using public property to support “any sect, church, denomination or system of religion.”

District Court Judge Thomas Prince of Tulsa County, Okla., disagreed, however, finding the monument serves a “secular” purpose recognizing the Ten Commandments’ place in American history and thereby is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Two of the plaintiffs claimed posting religious teachings on public property constituted endorsement of a religion other than their own. The other two—Prescott and Jim Huff, a member of First Baptist Church in Oklahoma City—said the Ten Commandments are part of their faith tradition, and they object to their beliefs being exploited for political reasons.

Introduced by Baptist legislator

Rep. Mike Ritze, a Southern Baptist and member of the Oklahoma legislature, introduced legislation in 2009 authorizing a Ten Commandments monument modeled after one in Texas, which was found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision in 2005. The Ritze family donated $10,000 to fund the granite monument.

Represented by the ACLU of Oklahoma, Prescott and the other plaintiffs argued unsuccessfully the Texas and Oklahoma monuments are not the same. They compared the one in Oklahoma to framed displays at courthouses and schools in three Kentucky counties the Supreme Court found unconstitutional in another 5-4 ruling, because their purpose was to advance religion.

Plan to appeal

Lawyers for the ACLU said they will appeal.

“The plaintiffs in this case do not seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the state capitol lawn because they find the text of the monument offensive, but rather because, like many Oklahomans, the Ten Commandments constitute a core part of their sincerely held religious beliefs, and it is offensive to them that this sacred document has been hijacked by politicians,” said Brady Henderson, legal director for ACLU of Oklahoma.

Ryan Kiesel, executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said from the outset plaintiffs knew the case would ultimately be decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and the judge’s decision “places us one step closer to a resolution.”

ATLANTA, Ga. (RNS)—West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Ralph Abernathy Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr. met, prayed and organized the civil rights movement, could be on its way to formal national recognition after a vote by the U.S. House of Representatives.

West Hunter Street Baptist Church in Atlanta, where Ralph Abernathy Sr. and Martin Luther King Jr. met, prayed and organized the civil rights movement. (RNS Photo courtesy of Ralph David Abernathy III Foundation)The vote approves a Department of Interior study to determine whether it can be named a National Park Service site.

“I am very pleased,” said Ralph David Abernathy III, who runs a foundation that intends to raise about $6 million to turn the site of the now-vacant stone building into a park and historic center. “This was the spiritual workplace of the civil rights movement.”

Abernathy, whose father and King were close friends and co-founders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, hopes for Senate passage of the West Hunter Street Baptist Church Study Act before the end of the year.

“The history of the Civil Rights Movement is a lesson in democratic ideals,” said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., who proposed the legislation with Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga. “We deeply believe that it is our duty to preserve these landmarks and to share their significance with future generations.”

Abernathy, one of four living children of the civil rights leader, testified before members of Congress in July about the bipartisan bill, which is co-sponsored by 77 House members.

The historic church was the site of training sessions for Freedom Summer and other voter education projects. It has been vacant ever since the elder Abernathy led the church to a new megachurch location. He died in 1990.

The foundation has proposed that the park at the site would include a 21-foot bronze statue of King, Abernathy and four other pioneers of the civil rights movement—Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, Juanita Abernathy and John Lewis.

The fate of a 60-year-old provision that allows churches to provide ministers with a tax-exempt “parsonage allowance” rests in the hands of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Chicago-based appellate court heard oral arguments Sept. 9 in a lawsuit filed by the Freedom From Religion Foundation claiming the IRS “confers a significant tax benefit upon religious clergy that is not available to nonclergy taxpayers.”

A Becket Fund graph compares the cost of the parsonage allowance to other similar tax breaks.The group based in Madison, Wis., that advocates for “freethinkers” including atheists, agnostics and skeptics claims the exemption is “patently unfair” and a violation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

A legal brief filed in June noted even the Bible commands citizens to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”

In November 2013, a federal judge agreed, ruling that a section of the tax code granting a benefit for “ministers of the gospel” not available to everyone else favors religion over nonreligion, thus creating an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Numerous faith groups, including American Baptist Churches USA and the Southern Baptist Convention, filed briefs asking the appellate court to overturn that ruling and uphold the housing allowance based on a legal doctrine known as “convenience of the employer.”

‘Convenience of the employer’

Convenience of the employer is based on the premise that for something to qualify as income, there must be an economic gain that primarily benefits the taxpayer personally. Employees might enjoy things like meals, travel and office furnishings, for example, but if they are provided primarily to benefit their employer, they are not counted as taxable income.

The same principle applies to lodging. For jobs like hotel managers required to live on-site, government workers serving abroad or seamen who live aboard ships, lodging is a key component of their work.

An April friend-of-the-court brief by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty argued ministers typically are expected to live near the church they serve, and in smaller congregations they often function as the building’s primary caretaker.

Ministers are on call day and night and frequently expected to open their homes to church events, meetings with parishioners and out-of-town guests like visiting missionaries. Further, the brief stated, ministers often face frequent moves and limited choice, especially if they are poorly paid.

The IRS identifies a minister qualifying for the housing allowance as someone “duly ordained, commissioned or licensed by a religious body” with authority to “conduct religious worship, perform sacerdotal functions and administer ordinances or sacraments according to the prescribed tenets and practices of that church or denomination.”

Claim it violates Establishment Clause

The Freedom From Religion Foundation argued that singling out clergy for preferential tax benefits violates the Establishment Clause.

“Neutrality is a necessary requirement of the Establishment Clause, which means that tax benefits cannot be preferentially provided to support religion,” according to the brief.

It further contended the main motivation for keeping the allowance is financial self-interest.

“Questioning tax-free housing for ministers is controversial because it is valuable to clergy and churches,” the group argued. “From the perspective of financial self-interest, ministers and churches are understandably concerned, as the multiple amicus briefs attest, but not because of interference with religious beliefs.”

According to a Courthouse News Service report, much of the discussion at the hearing focused on standing. The plaintiffs aren’t asking for a tax exemption themselves, notes a case background page on the Becket Fund website. “Instead, they merely seek to eliminate the exemption for everyone else.”

The other decision the court must weigh is whether the benefit is constitutional. The Becket Fund brief maintained the tax code routinely provides special treatment to churches not to promote religion but to reduce entanglement between church and state.

Ministers treated as self-employed

Churches are exempt from Social Security and Medicare taxes for wages paid to ministers, for example. Instead, ministers are treated as self-employed. Churches and certain related entities do not have to file IRS Form 990, a statement of financial disclosure required of other nonprofits.

The Becket Fund claimed removing the parsonage allowance would increase church-state entanglement by putting the IRS in the position of determining which deductions claimed as business expenses qualify as ministry.

The brief also maintained the housing allowance reduces discrimination among religions by favoring groups like the Roman Catholic Church, which uses primarily church-owned parsonages, over other churches, where it makes more sense to reimburse the minister for living expenses than to purchase and maintain a parsonage.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—A well-established international Christian student group is being denied recognition at almost two dozen California college campuses because it requires leaders to adhere to conservative evangelical Christian beliefs, effectively closing its leadership ranks to non-Christians and gays.

California State University, which hasCalifornia State University, which has 23 campuses, is “de-recognizing” local chapters of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship. (InterVarsity Christian Fellowship Photo) 23 campuses, is “de-recognizing” local chapters of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, an evangelical Christian group with 860 chapters in the United States. The university system says InterVarsity’s leadership policy conflicts with its state-mandated nondiscrimination policy requiring membership and leadership in all official student groups be open to all.

“For an organization to be recognized, they must sign a general nondiscrimination policy,” said Mike Uhlencamp, director of public affairs for the California State University system. “We have engaged with (InterVarsity) for the better part of a year and informed them they would have to sign a general nondiscrimination statement. They have not.”

InterVarsity, active in the United States since 1947, has been challenged on more than 40 college campuses, but CSU, with 447,000 students, is the largest to ban it so far. Other schools that have challenged InterVarsity include Vanderbilt University, Rollins College and Tufts University.

Supreme Court decision

The challenges stem from a 2010 Supreme Court decision that ruled a public college can refuse to recognize a religious student organization with an “all-comers” policy if its religious beliefs are effectively discriminatory.

InterVarsity policy states membership is open to all, but leaders must affirm its “doctrinal basis,” which declares belief in “the entire trustworthiness” of the Bible. On that basis, many InterVarsity leaders insist the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior.

Some campuses have reached an agreement with InterVarsity that permit chapters to remain on individual campuses. Ohio State University rewrote its student organization registration guidelines to read, “A student organization formed to foster or affirm the sincerely held religious beliefs of its members may adopt eligibility criteria for its student officers that are consistent with those beliefs.”

Other religiously oriented student groups have signed nondiscrimination policies where required, including Jewish, Catholic, mainline Protestant and Muslim groups. Hillel, the largest Jewish student organization, reports some local chapters have elected non-Jews to some posts.

Intervarsity response

In a video statement posted to the InterVarsity website, spokesman Greg Jao said the CSU decision means local chapters will lose access to on-campus meeting rooms, student fairs and other official school functions. He estimates the annual cost of covering those losses will be about $20,000 per chapter.

But in effect, the impact will be much less, Uhlencamp said.

“We are not disbanding them. They have not been removed from any of our campuses,” he said. “They are just not an officially recognized student organization. They will still have access to meeting rooms. They just will not receive as steep a discount.”

He noted the school’s policy dates to 1972 and is mandated by state law.

CSU originally notified InterVarsity its policy put it in conflict with university rules a year ago and then gave the group one year to respond. In his video statement, Jao said changing InterVarsity’s leadership policy would undermine its Christian foundation.

“We don’t believe we can affirm a policy that forces us to compromise gospel faith and Christian integrity without undermining our commitment to help students become real world changers, not just world accommodators,” he said.

FERGUSON, Mo. (RNS)—The youngest child of Martin Luther King Jr. leaned toward 30 students facing her inside the library at Riverview Gardens High School. Many of them live near the epicenter of the chaos that erupted in Ferguson. It’s why Bernice King chose this school for this discussion.

Bernice King, CEO of The King Center in Atlanta and daughter of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., speaking at the Newseum on Aug. 22, 2013. (RNS photo by Adelle M. Banks)The students seemed curious about this visitor, whose late father led the marches and protests that they’ve read about in class. But before she arrived, a school district administrator asked for a show of hands of those who thought nonviolent protests and peaceful resistance used during the American civil rights movement remain relevant in light of Ferguson. Only one hand shot up.

King is aware of this disconnect.

“My dad’s legacy is on the line,” King told the students. “If this doesn’t turn out the right way, it could begin to have people question what happened years ago.”

Fears a return of violence

King believes the community is at a critical moment as it continues to confront the police shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. And as it is for the students she addressed, much of her concern is centered on the violence that may return as the legal process moves forward.

“If he’s not indicted, what’s going to happen?” asked Justin Fowler, a senior, referring to Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Brown.

“You tell me. You live here,” King said. “That’s the big question out there right now. So what’s going to happen?”

“Everything will go bad,” he said.

Defenders of Wilson say he shot Brown in self-defense. The fear that a grand jury may not indict him is why King and others with the King Center in Atlanta arrived in the St. Louis area, listening to groups of youths to determine the best way to advocate nonviolence.

Channeling anger

They plan to develop a relationship with Riverview Gardens students, who are predominantly African-American and live closest to the unrest. The King Center officials hope to develop a strategy to help young people channel their anger in a nonviolent way, defusing a potentially explosive situation if the investigation doesn’t produce the results that many hope for.

“That part is out of our hands,” King said of the investigation. “We’ve got to find a way to not make it worse. … We can’t destroy each other. We’re all we’ve got. We’ve got to band together as a community. But we’ve also got to wipe out the ‘us-and-them’ mentality.”

The Ferguson situation has worn on the students who met with King. They are the leaders of Riverview Gardens High—captains of the football team, class officers, members of junior ROTC.

Some also live in the Canfield Green apartments, along the street where Brown was shot. D’Aja Washington, a sophomore, is friends with Brown’s sister.

Some have participated in the protests on West Florissant Avenue. Some have gone there to hand out water. Some stayed home, where they still couldn’t escape the sounds of violence at night.

A generational disconnect

Those who participated in the civil rights marches of Martin Luther King Jr.’s era have had trouble connecting with the young people on the streets of Ferguson this month who see the 1960s as irrelevant. Bernice King tried to bridge that divide.

Her father, she said, “helped people channel that anger into something positive to bring about the change they were hoping for.”

“They saw tanks too,” she said. “You think this is the first time tanks have been in a community? It’s not. You all think this was the first time tear gas was used? It was used on my daddy—in Selma. Tear gas, tanks. So, really, you’ve got to start thinking: What is the vision you want to see come out of this? It’s got to be big. You’ve got to see well beyond this moment.”

Anger ‘just wants to destroy’

King was just 5 years old when her father was assassinated in 1968. She dealt with death throughout her childhood, losing her uncle to a drowning and her grandmother to a fatal shooting. Her anger built, turning into rage at times. She’s since directed that energy into advocating the nonviolent philosophies of her father through the King Center.

“I don’t know if you realize this, but anger is anger,” she told the students. “It has no mind. It has no rationality. It’s mad and it just wants to destroy. At the end of the day, you have to find a way to arrest that anger.”

Ronada Hood, a senior, said she appreciated the conversation. The situation in Ferguson has made it more difficult for her to find a part-time job, since many of the businesses near where she lives have been looted and destroyed.

“The violence didn’t solve anything,” she said.

Two Baptist experts in religious liberty law say the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of a 1993 federal law intended to bolster religious freedom in the recent Hobby Lobby decision could set a precedent for future rulings applying the statute in ways contrary to its legislative intent.

Brent Walker and Holly Hollman of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty. (ABP Photo)Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and Executive Director Brent Walker analyzed the 5-4 ruling that the for-profit craft-store chain does not have to offer health insurance coverage for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

As the leader of the coalition that pushed for passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act more than 20 years ago, the Washington-based education and advocacy organization “has a significant stake in its interpretation and application,” Hollman insisted.

From the BJC’s perspective, Hollman said, the law’s strength is it balances free-exercise and other interests. That means religious claimants will not always win, but they have a fighting chance to avoid unnecessary interference by the government in the free exercise of their faith.

The application reflected in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion suggesting an answer to the employers’ religious-liberty concern without depriving employees of health care benefits “is the kind of win-win solution RFRA should provide,” Hollman said. But she added, “There is ample room for concern” in Justice Samuel Alito’s 41-page majority opinion about future rulings that might undermine the balancing act RFRA was intended to preserve.

The Supreme Court “was properly deferential” in recognizing the Christian owners of Hobby Lobby acted out of “sincerely held” religious beliefs in objecting to paying for coverage of emergency contraceptives and IUDs they believe cause an abortion, Hollman said.

But the court was “too quick” in finding that objection amounted to a “substantial” burden on their religious liberty, a key standard in the law intended to restore protections stripped in a 1990 Supreme Court decision that prompted the RFRA coalition, she said.

Walker, both an attorney and ordained minister who served as BJC general counsel before succeeding James Dunn as executive director in 1999, said the five-member majority “gave short shrift to the question of whether any burden on the exercise of religion is ‘substantial’ and ignored the real effects of the requested free exercise accommodation on the corporation’s employees desiring insurance coverage for contraception services.”

The court was correct to be sensitive to religious liberty issues in the secular marketplace, including some for-profit corporations, Walker said.

“Although one could reasonably argue against a corporate behemoth as large as Hobby Lobby—with 16,000 employees—there should be some protection for closely held ‘mom-and-pop’ businesses, even when conducted through the corporate fiction,” Walker said.

The court also ignored its own precedent that adverse effects of religious accommodation on third parties can violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, he said.

When fighting for passage of RFRA in the early 1990s, Hollman said, nobody had the interests of large, for-profit corporations in mind. Neither did the legislative debates anticipate the Affordable Care Act, and the debate between medical importance and religious objection to certain kinds of birth control.

While legislative fixes already are being debated, Walker said, the BJC “will look askance” at attempts to amend RFRA.

“We have too much invested in it to allow one court decision, for better or worse, to prompt an emasculation of that very important statutory protection for religious liberty,” he said.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Most Americans view the waves of children crossing into the United States from Central America as refugees fleeing danger at home. And they believe the United States should support these children while reviewing their cases, not deport them immediately.

A Hispanic girl slips through the border fence separating the U.S. and Mexico at Border Field State Park in Southern California. (RNS / Creative Commons image by Brian Auer)Those views come from all points along the political and religious spectrum, according to a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute. Democrats (80 percent), independents (69 percent) and Republicans (57 percent) favor offering support to unaccompanied children while a process to review their cases gets under way.

Most major religious groups say the same, including white evangelical Protestants (56 percent), white mainline Protestants (67 percent), minority Protestants (74 percent), Catholics (75 percent) and the religiously unaffiliated (75 percent).

The survey sample of 1,026 adults was not large enough to capture the views of smaller religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims or Mormons.

“It makes a difference that we are talking about children facing violence and harm,” said Robert P. Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute. “The value of keeping families together cuts across all party lines.”

As a result, most Americans can make a “pretty clear distinction between the problem of the children arriving from Central America and the problem of illegal immigration in general,” Jones said.

The survey found overall attitudes toward immigrants hardening somewhat, with a slight upward shift in the numbers who say they are a burden, not an asset, to the United States.

About one in four Americans (27 percent) see the children as illegal immigrants who should be deported. But 69 percent say they should be treated as refugees and allowed to remain in the United States if authorities determine it is not safe for them to be sent home.

However, Jones said, “even among those who say, in general, to identify and deport them, more than one in three nonetheless say in the case of the children, they would offer support and begin a process of considering if they could stay.”

Almost no one thinks the children are traveling thousands of miles without their parents for trivial reasons. The children are seen as fleeing violence and serious threats to their safety at home (45 percent), seeking better education and economic opportunities (34 percent) or both (14 percent).

Seven in 10 Americans (70 percent) say the children should be offered shelter and support while there’s “a process to determine whether they should be deported or allowed to stay.”

Most (56 percent) say these children’s families are “doing what they can to keep their children safe in very difficult circumstances.” At the same time, however, 38 percent say those children’s families are “taking advantage of American good will and are really seeking a back door to immigrate to our country.”

And about one in four (26 percent) say they should be deported immediately.

Few minimize the seriousness of the situation—36 percent consider it a crisis, and 43 percent call it “a serious problem but not a crisis.”

Response options

What to do with these children?

• Most surveyed (71 percent) said the United States should offer “refuge and protection” for those who come to the country “when they are facing serious danger in their home country.”

• 71 percent also mostly agree these Central American children waiting for their cases to be heard “should be released to the care of relatives, host families or churches rather than be detained by immigration authorities.” Twenty-eight percent disagree.

• However, only 39 percent would allow these children to stay for good, while 59 percent don’t want them here long-term because it “will encourage others to ignore our laws and increase illegal immigration.”

Attitudes becoming more polarized

The wave of children at the border is “impacting what Americans think about immigrants generally,” said Daniel Cox, Public Religion Research Institute research director. In short, attitudes are becoming more polarized between those who see immigrants as an asset and those who see them as a burden.

In early April, most people (54 percent) said immigrants make the United States stronger with their “hard work and talents,” but that figure declined to 49 percent by late July. Meanwhile, more said immigrants “take our jobs, housing and health care”—rising from 38 percent to 42 percent.

Views on access to citizenship or permanent legal residency did not change significantly. Most today (58 percent) would allow a path to citizenship; 17 percent would allow residency. And 22 percent say, “Identify and deport them.”

The overall survey is based on phone interviews with 1,026 adults, conducted in English and Spanish between July 23 and July 27. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Baptists joined other American religious leaders in praising President Barack Obama’s selection of a rabbi and law professor to lead the U.S. State Department’s anti-religious-discrimination efforts around the world.

Obama announced his nomination of Rabbi David Nathan Saperstein as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, preaches at a Washington, D.C., service in 2002. (RNS Image)“I am grateful that Rabbi Saperstein has chosen to dedicate his talent to serving the American people at this important time for our country,” Obama said.

The selection, which requires Senate confirmation, comes during an era the White House and State Department described as one of the most tumultuous and repressive for people of faith around the globe.

If confirmed, Saperstein would be the fourth person—and the first non-Christian—to hold the position responsible for monitoring and countering religious discrimination and persecution.

Statements from religious leaders quickly followed the president’s announcement.

“Rabbi Saperstein brings theological training and legal expertise, valuable experience serving on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and a passion for religious liberty both in the United States and around the world,” said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

“The United States’ commitment to the cause of international religious liberty will be in good hands under Rabbi Saperstein’s tutelage.”

Saperstein is director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. He teaches First Amendment church-state law and Jewish law as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Among his numerous board appointments are the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment.

Praise from religious leaders

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission praised Obama’s selection and promised to cooperate with Saperstein.

“I applaud President Obama for making a nomination to … a position that plays a key role in our nation’s responsibility to act on behalf of the persecuted around the world,” ERLC President Russell Moore said.

Moore lauded Saperstein as “a respected thinker and leader who brings gravity to this important task.”

Moore had written Obama earlier recommending the president consider appointing U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf to the position. He described the Republican from Virginia as “a tireless and unparalleled advocate for persecuted religious minorities.”

But in his statement after the announced nomination, Moore promised Saperstein his full support and prayers. “The downgrade of religious freedom and persecution of religious minorities around the world must end,” he said.

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship Executive Coordinator Suzii Paynter also praised the nomination.

“Rabbi Saperstein has been a colleague and leader for many causes and cases that have shaped the face of religious expression, religious liberty and constitutional direction,” Paynter said. “I look forward to his leadership in this new position.”

Religious Freedom Report released

In conjunction with the announcement about Saperstein, the State Department released its International Religious Freedom Report for 2013. The document demonstrates Saperstein will have his work cut out for him.

“In almost every corner of the globe, millions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and others representing a range of faiths were forced from their homes on account of their religious beliefs,” the document states. It goes on to detail instances of violence and persecution by religious groups and governments against other faiths from North Korea to Eritrea to Syria.

Saperstein is the ideal pick to counter those disturbing trends, said Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners.

“As a friend and fellow advocate for justice, I know he brings the courage, dedication and passion for protecting religious freedom that is necessary for success in this role,” Wallis said in a news release.

Wallis also urged the Senate to act quickly to confirm Saperstein “so that he can begin the work that is vital to our nation’s foreign policy and the good of the global community.”

If confirmed, Saperstein will follow Suzan Johnson Cook, a Baptist minister, who stepped down in October.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Toss out the party and ideology labels—Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal.

The Pew Research Center’s new survey, “Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology,” finds no sharp lines dividing people by their views on politics, faith, family, and the role and limits of government.

“It’s a spectrum,” said Michael Dimock, vice president for research for Pew Research Center. Looking at questions relating to faith and family, he observed, “The caricature that all religious people are Republican is just not true.”

Black and Hispanic political liberals who attend church and hold conservative views on issues such as gay marriage shade red on social issues.

To find where people align by values, the typology survey, based on 10,000 U.S. adults, divvies up the public into color zones.

Shading toward red:

• 12 percent: Steadfast Conservatives—older and white, socially and politically conservative.

• 10 percent: Business Conservatives—also largely white but more pro-Wall Street, pro-immigrant.

• 14 percent: Young Outsiders—conservative on government, not social issues.

Blue or shading that way:

• 15 percent: Solid liberals—this group parts company with other “blues” on religion and social issues.

• 15 percent: Faith and Family Left—largely black or Hispanic, highly religious.

• 12 percent: Next Generation Left—roughly half are under age 40, liberal on social issues but less keen on the social safety net.

• 13 percent: Hard-Pressed Skeptics—financially stressed and pessimistic.

‘Bystanders’ take no part in politics

And outside the zones altogether are the Bystanders (10 percent), often young, who take no part in politics.

“What you see is an anchor on the left of fairly secular people, balanced by the Faith and Family Left with a strong Democratic orientation but very religious personal lives. They’re more conservative about how they think people should be living their lives,” Dimock said.

Looking to the right, he sees divisions between Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives.

“Both are very religious personally, but the Business Conservatives don’t translate that into a social conservative stance. They are not as moralistic on how they see the scope of issues.”

Faith necessary for morality?

That turned up when Pew asked whether it was necessary to believe in God to be moral.

Yes, said an overwhelming number of the Faith and Family Left (91 percent) and more than two in three of Steadfast Conservatives (69 percent).

But the seesaw balanced with Business Conservatives (66 percent) and Next Generation Left (91 percent) saying belief in God was not essential to morality.

There are similar splits on views toward the Bible and human evolution.

Where Steadfast Conservatives and their Business brethren stood closest was on views of Islam. They were the only two types in which majorities agree on the statement: “Islamic religion is more likely than others to encourage violence.”

However, on questions about homosexuality and gay marriage, Steadfast Conservatives are much more likely to take the strongest stands in opposition.

Nearly three in four (74 percent) say society should discourage homosexuality rather than accept it—markedly higher than the Faith and Family Left (48 percent) who agree with them.

Gay marriage

Similarly, on gay marriage, 84 percent of Steadfast Conservatives and 55 percent of the Faith and Family left oppose it.

But gay marriage gets strong support from the right-leaning Young Outsiders (68 percent) and their counterpoint, the Next Generation Left (78 percent).

Both of those youthful “types” join the Solid Liberals in strong support for abortion to remain legal in all or most cases.

When Pew asked whether society is better off if people make marriage and children a priority, the same alignment emerged.

Most Young Outsiders (65 percent), Next Generation Left (72 percent) and Solid Liberals (77 percent) say society will do just as well if people have different priorities.

As Democrats and Republicans look ahead to elections, those generational divides are going to matter.

“The Democrats’ side is already aligning with generational change,” Dimock said. “So, the future isn’t as much of a challenge to the Democrats as it is to the Republicans.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—As soon as the Supreme Court decided for Hobby Lobby and against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, critics called for the repeal of the 1993 law the justices relied on to make their 5-4 decision.

A Washington Post editorial suggested the next day the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could be narrowed in scope. A hashtag popped up on Twitter: #repealRFRA. The Freedom From Religion Foundation asked its constituents to lobby Congress to scrap the law.

President Bill Clinton signs the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on the White House’s South Lawn on Nov. 16, 1993. (RNS public domain photo via the The U.S. National Archives)Yet at the same time, 10 prominent religious leaders sent a letter to Congress, imploring lawmakers not to touch the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“Do not amend or appeal RFRA, one our nation’s most vital legal protections for the religious freedom and rights of conscience of every person of every faith,” read the letter, whose signatories included Matthew Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; and Gary E. Stevenson, presiding bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

RFRA sits at the heart of the Hobby Lobby case, perhaps the most debated on the Supreme Court’s docket during its recent session. The case revolved around the question of whether employers had to cover all types of birth control, including ones their religious convictions held out as morally objectionable. But it hinged on RFRA.

Compelling government interest

RFRA says federal laws can’t substantially burden a person’s free exercise of religion unless the law furthers a compelling government interest—in the case in point, getting free birth control to women—and uses the least-restrictive means possible.

In the Hobby Lobby decision, the court’s conservative majority ruled privately held corporations, not just people, have rights under RFRA. And while it assumed the contraception mandate furthered a compelling interest, it ruled the mandate was not the least-restrictive means of getting a full range of birth control to women, and in the process, the mandate trampled on the religious rights of the evangelical Green family that owns Hobby Lobby.

Marci A. Hamilton, a Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law professor who has been trying to repeal RFRA since Congress passed it nearly unanimously in 1993, claimed the Hobby Lobby case shows how RFRA invites religious people to use their beliefs to discriminate against others.

“The genie is out of the bottle,” Hamilton said. “RFRA is an extreme standard, and with Hobby Lobby, it becomes crystal clear that RFRA yields results that are in opposition to the vast majority of Americans’ views.”

Most Americans, a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll released in April showed, believe an employer’s religious beliefs should not trump employees’ rights to all types of birth control promised by law.

Opens the door to other issue

Some critics of the Hobby Lobby decision say it not only tramples women’s health care rights, but also opens the door to other business owners who want to invoke their religious rights to discriminate by, for example, refusing to hire gay employees.

In the wake of the ruling, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, said it and allied groups “must remain vigilant in the event business owners attempt to use this decision to justify other forms of discrimination, including against LGBT people.”

Could the movement to repeal RFRA go anywhere? So far, no member of Congress has stood up to advocate repealing or even tinkering with it, although some have said the Supreme Court misinterpreted it.

“I’m not nervous for RFRA,” said the Southern Baptists’ Moore. “I think RFRA is secure in law and that it has the support of the Congress.”

Still, the attacks against RFRA, Moore continued, are unsettling and reflect a movement on the political left to redefine religious liberty protections as licenses to discriminate.

“We do see religious liberty coming under harsh rhetorical attack in ways I don’t think could be anticipated years ago,” he said. “We’re attempting to be Paul Reveres for religious liberty protection and warning people ahead of time that there are crucial rights that must be protected.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Here are five things to know about the Hobby Lobby case—one of the most anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year.

1. Corporations can’t pray, but they do have religious rights.

Hobby Lobby isn’t a person. It’s a chain of crafts stores owned by a religious family. And although the evangelical Green family objects to parts of the Affordable Care Act’s emergency contraception mandate, it’s not the Greens but the company that writes the check for employees’ health insurance. The first question the justices had to answer was this: Does Hobby Lobby have religious rights? To many Americans, this seems odd. Does a craft store believe in God?

Hobby Lobby founder Steve Green. (RNS Photo)A majority of the justices held a closely held company such as Hobby Lobby does have religious rights. The court didn’t apply those rights, however, to publicly held corporations, where owners’ religious beliefs would be hard to discern.

But well before the justices delivered their verdict on this question, many legal scholars said they wouldn’t be surprised were they to affirm the company’s religious rights. American corporations do have some of the rights and responsibilities we usually associate with people. And in the 2010 Citizens United campaign finance case, the justices overturned bans on corporate political spending as a violation of freedom of speech—corporations’ free speech.

2. The Affordable Care Act isn’t the only way to get contraception to women.

The justices in this case interpreted not only the 225-year-old Constitution but also the 20-year-old Religious Freedom Restoration Act. If a federal law is going to substantially burden someone’s religious freedom, RFRA says the feds must make sure the law uses the “least-restrictive means” to achieve its purpose. In this case, the purpose is providing birth control to female employees at no cost.

Justice Stephen Breyer asked the “least-restrictive means” question when this case was argued before the court: Instead of making the company provide insurance that conflicts with its owners’ beliefs, how about if the government pays for it? The Supreme Court answered Breyer’s question in the affirmative in this opinion: There are ways of getting contraception to women that don’t substantially burden the Green family’s religious beliefs. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurring opinion, suggested the government could pay.

3. The American people would have ruled differently.

There are nine U.S. Supreme Court justices, and most of them ruled for Hobby Lobby. But what if a softball team composed of a random sample of nine American adults got to decide this case instead? Well, the team likely would have come up with a different decision.

In a Kaiser Health Tracking Poll, released in April, Americans expressed solid support for the contraception mandate, backing it by a 2-to-1 margin. Kaiser also asked specifically about requiring coverage in the Hobby Lobby scenario: Should a for-profit business owner with religious objections to birth control be subject to the requirement? Again, a majority (55 percent) said yes, they should, “even if it violates their owners’ personal religious beliefs.”

4. This court protects religious rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ court is shaping up to be pretty darn protective of that free exercise clause. Less than two months ago, the court ruled 5-4 the town of Greece, N.Y., could regularly convene town meetings with sectarian Christian prayers. And in 2012, the court ruled 9-0 a Lutheran school could fire a teacher who had some ministerial responsibilities, despite the government’s argument that her dismissal violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In all these cases, the court sided with religious rights over other rights. “The Roberts court has been a great champion of religious freedom,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represented Hobby Lobby.

5. Hobby Lobby won, but the next company to cite religious objections might well lose.

Contraception mandate fans painted terrible scenarios of religious rights run amok in the case of a Hobby Lobby win. What if a Jehovah’s Witness invokes her religious rights and says she won’t cover blood transfusions in her company’s health plan? What if an employer says vaccinations conflict with his beliefs?

The Hobby Lobby decision may certainly embolden religious employers to object to laws they consider burdensome. But that doesn’t mean they’re always going to win. The court made clear in this ruling religion should not always trump the law and said its decision applies to the contraception mandate, not other insurance mandates. 

The court also specified an employer could not use religion to get an exemption from laws that prohibit discrimination—on the basis of race, for example. The justices were silent, however, on whether employers’ religious beliefs could override laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Also unclear, legal experts say, is how this decision is going to affect religious nonprofits and religiously affiliated schools and hospitals that want the same sort of exemption the justices awarded to Hobby Lobby.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—The Supreme Court sided with the evangelical owners of Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., ruling 5-4 that the arts-and-crafts chain does not have to offer insurance for types of birth control that conflict with company owners’ religious beliefs.

The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court. (RNS/ Supreme Court Photo)Beyond the specifics of the Hobby Lobby case before them, the justices broke new legal ground by affirming that corporations, not just individual Americans or religious non-profits, may claim religious rights.

Does the decision mean the religious beliefs of business owners stand paramount? That they are more important than a female employee’s right to choose from the full array of birth control methods she is promised under the Affordable Care Act? Or that a business owner may invoke his religious rights to deny service to a gay couple?

Not necessarily, legal experts say.

The decision for Hobby Lobby, the justices made clear, applies to privately held companies such as Hobby Lobby—not vast publicly held corporations, for which the owners’ religious beliefs would be difficult to discern.

Victory for conservatives

But in general, the ruling—the most-anticipated in the high court’s current session—is a victory for advocates who had hoped the justices would find that the federal government had tread too heavily on the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.

“This case demonstrates that Americans don’t give up their religious freedom when they open a family business,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Hobby Lobby. “The court understands that religion isn’t limited to what you do in a synagogue on Saturday or a church on Sunday.”

The majority opinion says:

• The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which sets a high bar for any federal law that restricts religious practice, can be invoked by closely held for-profit businesses.

• Although employers at such companies can’t be forced to insure for contraception that conflicts with their religious beliefs, that doesn’t mean that any religious employer can refuse to provide anything that doesn’t meet their personal religious tests—blood transfusions or vaccinations, for example.

• The government could have found a way to achieve the goals of the act’s so-called contraception mandate in a way that impinged less on religious rights, a RFRA requirement.

Health Care act overstepped

Lawyers for Hobby Lobby argued the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s landmark health care law, had overstepped when it required the company and another owned by a Mennonite family—Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp.—to insure employees for birth control the companies owners found contrary to their Christian beliefs.

Agreeing with the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy, the court’s swing vote, who also wrote a concurring opinion. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayer. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent.

The justices’ affirmation of religious rights in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby reflects rulings in two other major religion cases in the past three years, and the seeming intention of the Robert’s court to preserve religious rights when they compete with others or run in the face of anti-discrimination laws.

In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC in 2012, the court backed a Lutheran school that had fired a teacher who claimed she had been discriminated against under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In Greece v. Galloway in May, the court approved the convening of government meetings with highly sectarian prayers.