Giving hope to persecuted Christians since 1995
Select Page

03/23/2012 United States (Christian Post) – The American Center for Law and Justice is urging the president of New York’s Stony Brook University to reverse a decision that ends a long-standing practice of closing school in observance of major Christian and Jewish holidays.

The ACLJ calls the move “an unnecessary, ill-advised change that demonstrates hostility to members of all religious faiths.”

The university decided earlier this month to no longer cancel classes for Christian and Jewish holidays in what it says is an effort to ensure that some religions aren’t given special treatment.

In the past, classes have been canceled in observance of Good Friday, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur. But now Jewish and Christian students will have to choose between observing their religion and going to class.

Stony Brook says by ending a practice that “honors only some religions,” it is aligning itself with other major research universities and leveling the playing field.

“This schedule change demonstrates hostility toward religion and departs from the American tradition of the government accommodation of religious practices,” he said. “To discard a long-standing practice of closing school in observance of religious holidays is offensive and runs afoul of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and New York State law.”

The Interfaith Center at Stony Brook, which includes Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Islamic and Asian Christian chaplains, are upset with the changes, and said they were never consulted by the university. The group wrote a letter of protest to university president Dr. Samuel L. Stanley Jr., calling the changes “ill-advised.”

The ACLJ also sent a letter to the Stony Brook president. In their legal analysis, the law firm contends that “the terms of the new calendar and the secretive, exclusionary process used to create it, strongly signal a hostility to religious adherents.”

The letter explains that this hostility is unwarranted, and is neither required nor justified by the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has explained that ‘the Constitution . . . affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. . . . Anything less would require the ‘callous indifference’ we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause,” it states.

[Full Story]