Headlines: Separation of Church and State (T23R-2)
 Boston Globe | Reinforcing the church-state wall Los Angeles Times More significantly, he penned the phrase many social conservatives have in recent decades denounced, advocating a steadfast "wall of separation between church and state." Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum revived the debate about ... My Take: Santorum's right, JFK wrong on separation of church and state Legal Scholar: Santorum Is Right on Separation of Church, State Not Absolute John F. Kennedy, Rick Santorum, and the Separation of Church and State |
Charles C. Haynes: Does New York's separation of church/school go to far? Baxter Bulletin (Gannett News Service, Sam Kittner/Freedom Forum/File) / SAM KITTNER/GNS Few church/state battles in American history have had as many byzantine twists and turns as Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York. First Amendment column: Church, state struggle to find balance in New York |
 The Week Magazine | What Ireland can teach the U.S. about separating church and state The Week Magazine After all, I live in Ireland, where there has never been any of the "absolute separation of church and state" that Santorum and a politically significant, passionately committed bloc of like-minded religious conservatives abhor. Far from limiting state ... |
 MLive.com | Rick Santorum talks economy, Koran burning, separation of church and state on ... MLive.com Against separation of church and state? Separation of church and state means that the state should not be able to tell religion how to practice it's faith. I believe in that. That's what the First Amendment is about, making sure the state cannot force ... Santorum rejects total separation of church and state Santorum touts wider role for faith in public life Michigan Live: Church, State, And Hydrofracking |
 Philadelphia Inquirer (blog) | Ad Nauseum: Separation of Church and State keeps Creationism out of Schools. Philadelphia Inquirer (blog) The separation of church and state â€" apparently a sickening idea to Rick Santorum - has been an important factor in keeping creationism out of public schools. This may be among the many reasons the creationist candidate says publicly that the idea ... |
 New York Daily News | Rick Santorum, learn your history New York Daily News By David Reynolds / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS What is the proper divide between government and religion? For some, like Rick Santorum, little should exist. Rick Santorum's rejection of the separation of church and state flies in the face of the Founding ... |
Two There Are: The Church, the State and the Dangers of Radical Secularism Catholic Online There is therefore in the Catholic mind, both Church and State, and a natural and necessary separation of Church and State. But this separation of Church and State does not imply subordination of Church to State. Quite the contrary, the State and the ... |
 Fox News | An Ecumenical Defense of the Separation of Church and State Huffington Post I'm very much in concert with the Catholic Church's eager concern over the separation of Church and State. This was amply demonstrated Thursday at the House of Representatives hearing regarding the Obama administration's rule that requires insurers to ... The separation of church and welfare state The Church, The State And The Contraception Mandate What Are You Going to Give Up This Lent? |
Â
Government officials can and do sponsor and promote various public events. Job fairs, educational seminars and town hall meetings are just a few examples. When these events occur, government officials often go out of their way to make sure people know about them and urge them to attend.
Can they do the same with a prayer breakfast?
Americans United says no. In Kentucky, AU has asked Gov. Steve Beshear to see to it that state officials drop their sponsorship of a March 6 prayer breakfast.
Americans United has received several complaints about the event. Yesterday, AU Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Madison Fellow Brooke R. Hardy sent a letter to Beshear and Attorney General Jack Conway, asking them to end any appearance of state endorsement of what it is clearly a religious event.
Luchenitser and Hardy noted in the letter that the breakfast is referred to as the “Governor’s Prayer Breakfast†and that it is being heavily promoted on the state’s official website. On the site, Beshear notes that he selected the theme for the event, which is described as a time for Kentuckians to “come together in prayerful humility and reflection to ask God’s wisdom in guiding the future of [the] Commonwealth.â€
Here’s the problem with that: Not all Kentucky residents may want to pray at the governor’s urging. Some don’t want to pray at all. It’s none of the state’s business whether they do or don’t. When state officials heavily promote an event like this, the clear message is that they think you ought to be religious and pra y. Promoting faith isn’t in their job description.
Whenever Americans United protests events like this, we encounter the same arguments. None are particularly persuasive, but here they are:
The prayer breakfast is privately sponsored. Really? You could have fooled me. It’s all over the Kentucky government’s website, and it sure looks like the state has a heavy hand in it. As Luchenitser and Hardy noted in their letter, “The name of the event includes the Governor’s official title. The event is advertised on the Commonwealth’s official website, directly below a banner that includes the Commonwealth’s official seal, the Governor’s title, and the text ‘Kentucky.gov.’ Those who wish to attend the Breakfast, whether as individuals or legislators, can reserve a spot using a form linked to the same website. That form, which can be submitted electronically direc directly from the website, itself bears the official seal of the Commonwealth.â€
The event is non-sectarian and/or ecumenical. So what? Government should not promote “non-sectarian†religion any more than it should promote a specific faith. Ecumenism is also no defense. When government promotes 10 religions instead of one, it’s only compounding the problem. The government’s stance on religion should be strict neutrality. Prodding people to attend a prayer event is not neutrality.
We’ve been doing it for years. That’s irrelevant. Church-state violations don’t get grandfathered in because they’ve been going on for a long time. Beshear points out that the prayer breakfast started in 1965. All that means is that the state has been violating the law for 47 years. It’s time to stop.
No one is saying Beshear can’t attend a privately sponsored prayer breakfast. AU’s letter makes that clear. What we want is also clear: “[W]e ask the Governor’s office to cancel the Prayer Breakfast. Alternatively, if feasible at this late date, it may be possible to cure the constitutional violation if the Prayer Breakfast is converted into a privately sponsored event and the Governor’s office fully disassociates itself from the event. Among other actions, the Commonwealth and the Governor’s office must cease their official endorsement, promotion, and advertisement of the Breakfast â€" on  the Commonwealth’s website and elsewhere. The Commonwealth and the Governor’s office must refrain from funding, planning, or organizing the Breakfast, and any state funds already spent for this year’s Breakfast must be reimbursed by private parties.â€
Kentucky officials have a right to their bacon and eggs. They should leave the state-supported side of prayer off the taxpayer’s tab.
Do non-Christian students face discrimination in some public schools? That certainly seems to be the case.
In a column published in the Knoxville News Sentinel yesterday, student Krystal Myers said Christianity is routinely favored at her Lenoir City (Tenn.) High School.
Myers, an atheist, said there are prayers each year at graduation ceremonies, prayers at football games and other athletic events and religious displays by teachers. Youth ministers, she said, are allowed to come onto the school campus and hand out candy and other food to Christian students and their friends.
According to her sources, the local school board also opens its meeting with Christian prayers.
“The whole foundation of how our school is conducted is established by obvious Christians,†asserted Myers, an honors student. “Somehow, this is unsurprising. If our school board chooses to ignore the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, then it is no surprise that teachers choose to do the same.
“I know that I will keep trying to gain my rights as an atheist and as an American citizen,†she continued, “but I also need your help in educating other people to realize the injustice done to all minority groups. The Christian faith cannot rule the United States. It is unconstitutional. Religion and government are supposed to be separate.
“If we let this slide, what other amendments to the Constitution will be ignored? †Myers asked. “I leave you to decide what you will or will not do, but just remember that nonbelievers are not what you originally thought we were. We are human beings â€" just like you.â€
Myers’ column was originally written for the Panther Press, the student newspaper where she is editor, but school officials refused to allow it to be published. School Superintendent Wayne Miller told the News Sentinel he feared her editorial had the potential for disruption in the school.
"We do have the right to control the content of the school paper if we feel it is in the best interest of the students," he told the newspaper.
So the bottom line is this: School officials sponsor or allow the promotion of Christianity but censor the expression of dissenting voices. That’s about as clear a violation of the U.S. Constitution as you can get.
Krystal is a bright and courageous young woman. She was right to bring these issues into the light of day so the situation can be corrected. Public schools must welcome all students, regardless of their views about religion. It is a violation of the First Amendment for government to favor the majority faith over others, or to favor religion over nonreligion.
That is a fundamental rule of American life, and it applies in Lenoir City just as it applies in the rest of the country.
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Officials in Carroll County, Md., have managed to make something as seemingly innocent as a seminar on the Maryland Constitution into a serious church-state separation issue.
County employees were asked to attend a class today on the state constitution taught by an ultra-conservative Christian minister, David Whitney of the Institute on the Constitution.
According to The Baltimore Sun, Whitney said, "We will be looking at the language of our founding fathers who wrote they were 'grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberties' front and center on this document. The Bible is the source of the authority that they looked to."
The seminar is not technically mandatory, but who is to say what sort of peer pressure is being applied to reluctant attendees and what consequences employees could face if they skip out?
The training is also being paid for with $800 of county money, which has Americans United particularly concerned.
My AU colleague Rob Boston told The Sun, “It is outrageous for any county government to be spending taxpayer dollars for religious-right political indoctrination, which is exactly what this seminar is about. Do these commissioners realize what a mess they have stepped into? This is a toxic stew, and employees should not be forced to dine there."
The AU Legal Department has written to county officials warning of the constitutional improprieties involved.
Apparently the county commissioners either don’t realize what they’re stepped into, or they don’t care. I’d say it’s the latter because Commissioner Richard Rothschild sees no problem with this situation.
"It is perfectly appropriate to teach a course which factually explains the role God plays in our constitution," Rothschild said, according to The Sun. "Many of us take an oath to uphold the constitution. Government leaders should make every effort to understand it. Many of our problems today occur because leaders ignore this beautiful document, which I honor and respect."
Keep in mind, this is the same county that drew criticism last year when the board began opening its meetings with Christian prayer.
And just when you thought this situation couldn’t get a lot worse, it turns out Whitney is part of an organization that seems awfully cozy with the Christian Reconstructionist movement, which is on the farthest fringe of the Religious Right. Christian Reconstructionists want to scrap democracy in favor of a draconian fundamentalist theocracy.
On its website, the Pasadena, Md.-based Institute claims its view “of government is that there is a God, the God of the Bible, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of civil government is to secure our rights. There are many views of government, from equally numerous world views. Americans are blessed that our Founders' Biblical Worldview informed their political philosophy and the framing of our founding documents.†(The Institute disseminates reams of material by David Barton, a “Christian nation†activist.)
Let’s be clear on a few things. The Founding Fathers did not intend the United States to be a Christian nation, nor did they base the Constitution on the Bible. There’s a reason our laws say nothing about it being illegal to covet our neighbor’s backyard grill.
Carroll County’s officials are veering off into radical territory. Taxpayer money should never be used to fund religious indoctrination, nor should any government employee feel pressured to attend a religiously based seminar sponsored by a government entity.
Everything about this situation is wrong, and county officials need to make it right.
Last Thursday, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a hearing on two of their Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization bills, which include a number of troubling sections that would allow for voucher funding if passed. The National Coalition for Public Education (NCPE) sent a letter to all members of the Committee asking them to reject any provisions in the package of ESEA bills that would permit federally funded private school vouchers in the reauthorization bills.
Heads up, residents of Oklahoma: There’s a move afoot to strip your state constitution of its strong language protecting separation of church and state.
Rep. Jason Nelson, an Oklahoma City Republican, has proposed a ballot initiative that would ask voters to remove Article 2, Section 5, of the state constitution. This just happens to be the part of the constitution that separates religion and government.
Oklahoma, like a lot of states, has very specific church-state language. The provision in question states, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.â€
Nelson and his allies want to remove this provision to clear the way for voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools. The Rules Committee has already passed House Joint Resolution 1081 by an 11-1 vote, and now it faces a vote in the full House.
Americans United is speaking out and has written letter to state officials, urging them to oppose the change.
Those of you outside of Oklahoma should be concerned as well. Across the country, state constitutional church-state provisions are under attack. In Florida, the issue will appear on the ballot this November. Proponents there tried to rig the language to make the change sound benign. Americans United and its allies stopped that, but that vote goes on.
Americans United is working to defend church-state provisions in Georgia, Alaska and Missouri. The problem could surface elsewhere.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court let us down when it upheld Ohio’s voucher plan aimed at the city of Cleveland. Since then, advocates of church-state separation have relied on state constitutional provisions to knock down vouchers in some states.
The right wing has seen these victories and realizes that state constitutions are an important second line of defense in protecting taxpayers from mandatory support for religion. Their answer is to attack those provisions.
The irony is rich. The Religious Right, which so often claims to revere tradition, is willing to trash the basic freedoms found in state constitutions to promote its goal of taxing everyone to pay for the religious education of a few.
Stay alert. This is a nationwide problem. Your state may be next.
Earlier this month AU, along with over 20 other organizations, submitted comments opposing proposed regulations issued by the Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Commerce.
The regulations proposed by the Department of Commerce would remove current restrictions that bar the federal government from releasing federally funded property to private organizations if it will, at any point, be used for inherently religious activities. Our comments urged the Commerce Department to reject the proposed rule. The comments focused on the fact that the current restrictions on using federally funded property for religious purposes are mandated by Supreme Court precedent (both Tilton and Nyquist). And, we expressed our disappointment that the current Administration would propose abolishing constitutional protections that even the Bush Administration deemed necessary. In addition, we objected to the proposed rule because it conflicts with the process and "fundamental principles" established by Obama’s Executive Order 13,559. In particular, the proposed rule would ignore the mandate to “promote uniformity in agencies’ policies that have implications for faith-based and other neighborhoods organizations and in related guidance.â€
The proposed HUD regulations are plagued by a number of similar problems. They would apply Bush-era faith-based rules (which have since been rejected by an Executive Order issued by President Obama as well as the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships) to a newly created homeless emergency assistance program. Again, the proposed rule breaks with both the reform structure established by the President, and is simply bad policy.
We sincerely hope both agencies maintain respect for the Constitution and reject both proposed rules. You can read our comments to HUD here and to Commerce here.
Florida’s public school prayer bill, SB 98, has passed the full Senate and the House Judiciary Committee and moves to the House floor for a vote as soon as today.
We’ve discussed the major provisions of the bill on the Legislative Blog before, but since that time the legislation has been made significantly worse. In its current form, the legislation would allow religious prayers at any school event, voluntary or not, in both elementary and secondary schools.
As of this week, the Florida Family Council (associated with Focus on the Family) and the Liberty Council (a conservative Christian legal group) have come out in opposition to SB 98 as well.  When a number of far-right groups agree with us and our allies that a bill is unconstitutional, the legislation clearly goes too far. The organizations rightly point out that if the bill passes, school districts throughout the state will face an onslaught of costly lawsuits seeking to protect students’ religious freedom.
We sincerely hope SB 98 is finally stopped in the best interests of Florida students and school districts.
Ding, dong, the bill is dead, the creationism bill is dead!
Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma has decided to table legislation that would have mandated the teaching of “creation science†in public schools. The bill had passed the Indiana Senate, albeit with a modification requiring the teaching of other theories on the origins of life on Earth from several religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and Scientology. Â
The problem was that no matter how Indiana lawmakers tried to modify the bill, there was no getting around the fact that it was blatantly unconstitutional.
Did Bosma have a change of heart and realize that creationism has no place in public schools? Nothing of the sort. He simply realized that a little thing called the U.S. Supreme Court was in his way. Â
“It seemed to me not to be a productive discussion, particularly in light that there is a United States Supreme Court case that appears to be on point that very similar language is counter to the constitution,†Bosma said, according to the Indianapolis Star. “It looked to me to be buying a lawsuit when the state can ill afford it.â€
Bosma is, surprisingly, correct on both those points.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear on “creation science.†In the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the justices struck down a Louisiana law requiring the public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution. The law’s intent, the court said, was to promote the teachings of certain religious denominations.
Lawsuits definitely aren’t cheap. An attorney for the city of Cranston, R.I., estimated recently that taking a lawsuit over a public school prayer banner to the Supreme Court would cost around $700,000 for the entire process.  Â
In spite of the many reasons to abandon the creationism bill, which has been introduced multiple times by Sen. Dennis Kruse, we will probably see it again next year. Kruse has analyzed the makeup of the Supreme Court and he thinks the justices are ready to overturn Edwards v. Aguillard. Â Â
“We have five pretty decent Supreme Court members who have been ruling pretty conservative on a lot of different things and they might have had a different ruling,†Kruse said, according to the Star.
That seems unlikely. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy isn’t usually on board with the promotion of religion in public schools, and even conservatives like Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito might think creationism in public school science classes goes too far. Even if Kruse had a point, it would still cost the state of Indiana a lot of money to re-litigate the issue. If Indiana can’t afford the lawsuit this year, what makes Kruse think the state will be able to afford it next year?
Kruse seems to be obsessed with “creation science,†and he needs to give it up already. He has lost the fight. Besides, there is important legislative work to be done, which is where his focus needs to be.
An El Paso church’s brazen effort to remove the mayor and two members of the city council has been brought to a screeching halt.
The political drama in the west Texas town started last summer when Pastor Tom Brown of Word of Life Church issued a politically charged email to the community. Brown, who sent the email under the guise of his Tom Brown Ministries, attacked El Paso Mayor John Cook and El Paso City Council Members Steve Ortega and Susie Byrd because the three voted to extend health-care benefits to domestic partners.
Brown then joined forces with a group called El Pasoans for TradÂiÂtional Family Values (EPFTFV) and announced he would recall Cook, Ortega and Byrd. His ministry’s website posted an “Open Letter to City Council†that said in part, “If you are upÂset at this action and would like to sign and/or circulate a recall petition against Mayor John Cook and RepÂresenÂtatives Susie Byrd and Steve OrÂtega, then fill out the form below. Share this page with your friends and get them to fill out the form. Thanks.â€
Brown’s church and ministry essentially organized and coordinated the recall campaign, taking the lead role in circulating petitions. The church gathered enough signatures to put the matter on the ballot, but Brown overlooked one thing: Texas election laws prohibit corporations (which includes non-profit groups) from intervening in elections.
County Court Judge Javier Alvarez had earlier ruled that the church and EPFTFV had broken the law, but he refused to stop the election, arguing it would thwart the will of the people.
The Texas 8th Court of Appeals was not impressed with this curious logic. Ruling unanimously, the court slammed Alvarez and made it clear that the state’s laws must be enforced.
“Despite having viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order and indulging every reasonable inference in its favor, we find the trial court’s order denying injunctive relief is so arbitrary as to exceed the bounds of reasonable discretion,†wrote the judges.
The appeals court added, “It is essential to the independence of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial process that a judge be faithful to the law and not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism. It is significant, we think, that the trial court lost sight of the fact that a proper application of the law to the facts in this case does not act to bar voters from properly exercising their right to seek a recall of elected office holders, provided that such right is exercised in accordance with the provisions of the Election Code.â€
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Religious Right legal organization founded by television and radio preachers in the early 1990s, jumped into the case on behalf of Brown’s church. Joel Oster, the ADF attorney who handled the lawsuit, didn’t comment after the ruling came down, and the two local attorneys who worked on it, Theresa Caballero and Stuart Leeds, hung up on an El Paso Times reporter who called asking for comment.
The bombastic Brown attacked the appeals court and is vowing to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but Mark Walker, Cook’s attorney, thinks it’s unlikely that the state high court will hear the matter. Walker noted that the Texas Supreme Court usually hears cases only if the lower court was split or if lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on a legal question.
“My analysis is it can’t be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court,†Walker told the Times. He called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law.â€
Brown’s troubles may not over. He could get slapped with a bill for Cook’s legal fees, which have topped a quarter of a million dollars. Furthermore, violations of the Texas election law can result in criminal penalties. Jaime Esparza, the local district attorney, is investigating that aspect of things.
Finally, Americans United last year asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate Brown’s partisan political activities and, if he is found in violation of the law, to revoke his ministry’s tax-exempt status.
It sounds like Brown has stepped into quite a tar pit. Maybe all of this political intervention by a church might not have been a good idea after all.
- Sponsors -
Comments