The Wall of Separation Blog

Image

The rise of the Delta variant has led some vaccine-hesitant Americans to finally take the (needle) plunge and get a shot. A few days ago, the country managed to reach President Joe Biden’s goal of having 70 percent of the population receive at least one shot. Biden had hoped we’d hit his goal by July 4. We did it a month late – but at least we did it.

That’s no thanks to white Christian nationalists or the politicians who kowtow to them. At a time when we’re seeing a drop in vaccine hesitancy among most faith groups, white evangelicals aren’t budging much. As Religion News Service reported recently, “White evangelical Protestants remain the religious group with the highest percentage of vaccine refusers with 24% (compared to 26% in March).”

Despite being nowhere near a majority, vaccine-denying Christian nationalists have managed to spawn all manner of chaos during the pandemic – remember their super-spreader church events early on? Recall how many of them vowed to never take the shots? Recollect the asinine conspiracy theories they embraced?

But wait, there’s more! Their latest stunt is resisting public school mask mandates and requirements by employers that workers be vaccinated. An Ohio-based Christian nationalist group called Moms for America recently issued a press statement calling on evangelicals to pull their children out of public schools rather than send them there masked.

Meanwhile, Republican governors in two states, Florida and Texas, have issued orders that prohibit public schools from requiring masks. (Isn’t it funny how conservatives extol “local control” – until a locality does something they don’t like?) In Louisiana, Republican Attorney General Jeff Landry, a close ally of the Religious Right, is undercutting Democratic Gov. John Bel Edward’s effort to reinstate a mask mandate and promote vaccines by urging people to claim religious exemptions.

In places where state officials are behaving more responsibly, Christian nationalists remain hard at work trying to torpedo policies they insist infringe on their religious freedom – even though there is no right under religious freedom to spread sickness or put the lives of others at risk.

All of this is happening even as a consensus is emerging that the only way we’ll defeat the Delta variant is by focusing on the unvaccinated and urging them to get jabs. Even some Republican governors are finally stepping up. Consider Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who recently told reporters, “It’s time to start blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks. It’s the unvaccinated folks that are letting us down. Almost 100 percent of the new hospitalizations are with unvaccinated folks. And the deaths are certainly occurring with the unvaccinated folks. These folks are choosing a horrible lifestyle of self-inflicted pain.”

Is it too little too late? Can a voice like Ivey’s compete with the chorus of Christian nationalist death cultists and their political allies who insist that “freedom” means the right to make everyone else miserable?

Stay tuned. This fall will be crucial as schools return to session and more and more employers try to reopen offices.

Sensible people want a return to normal life. We’ll never get there as long as some politicians insist on playing to an unhinged, science-denying base of conspiracy-embracing fundamentalists who believe Tucker Carlson knows more about the pandemic than Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Issues

Protecting Religious Freedom During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Tags

Religious Right

Texas

Florida

Louisiana

Take Note, Christian Nationalists: Religious Persecution Is Real. You Are Not Experiencing It.

boston — Tue, 03 Aug 2021 12:44:18 +0000

Take Note, Christian Nationalists: Religious Persecution Is Real. You Are Not Experiencing It. boston Tue Aug 03, 2021 - 08:44

Authored by

Image

The U.S. Department of State and the Office of International Religious Freedom (OIRF) recently released its annual International Religious Freedom Report. Since 1998, the Department of State has submitted a report about religious freedom globally to Congress and the public. The report investigates religious persecution, limits on religious practice and societal actions concerning religious freedom in nearly 200 countries and territories.

In the introduction to the report, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken stated that across the world, “individuals continue to be killed, tortured, jailed, harassed, and threatened on account of their religious identity or beliefs. Left unaddressed, such abuses threaten societal cohesion and political stability, undermine economic development, and can foster radicalization and violent extremism.” That final line is relevant to politics at home, where religious extremists play the victim to avoid anti-discrimination laws and stir partisanship.

The report puts a lot in perspective. Around the globe, there has been a rise in violence related to religion. Iran has cracked down on non-Islamic religions, arresting and harassing religious minorities that the government refuses to recognize. In Nigeria, courts continue to condemn people to the death penalty or life in prison for blasphemy. The military coup in Myanmar further catalyzed ethnic cleansing of Rohingya Muslims, something that the military previously endorsed. Worldwide, we’ve seen a spike in anti-Semitism.

For many people, the right to religious freedom is not guaranteed, as the above examples soberly demonstrate. Indeed, 56 countries still have high or severe restrictions on individual religious freedom. For the Biden administration, that is unacceptable. When introducing the report at a press conference, Blinken noted that “Religious freedom is a human right … it goes to the heart of what it means to be human, to think freely, follow our conscience, change our beliefs if our hearts and minds lead us to do so, to express those beliefs in public and in private.”

But just because the Biden administration respects religious freedom as a fundamental right, that doesn’t mean it elevates it above other rights. In the press conference about the report’s release, Daniel Nadel, the head of the OIRF since 2015, noted that the Biden administration’s posture regarding religious freedom differed from the Trump administration. Nadel remarked that Blinken made clear that religious freedom is “a human right that exists in codependence with other human rights … Secretary Pompeo expressed his view that there was a hierarchy of rights, and that’s a view that this administration departs from.” Unlike in Donald Trump’s world, religious freedom is one of many human rights; it is equally as important, but should not abridge, other fundamental rights.

Religious minorities in countries like China, Iran and Russia face continuous oppression and are persecuted for simply expressing their faith. For them, religious freedom is a right their life depends on. This is nothing like the whining done by religious extremists in the United States, who cry out about alleged bigotry when they themselves frequently use religion to unfairly discriminate against others. The religious in foreign countries are beaten, imprisoned, and harassed. Christian nationalists here complain when they must allow gay people into their stores.

The preface to the OIRF report includes a quotation from Biden, which reads, “[T]he work of protecting religious freedom, for people of all faiths and none, is never finished. … We must be vigilant against the rising tide of targeted violence and hate at home and abroad, and work to ensure that no one feels afraid to attend a religious service, school, or community center, or walk down the street wearing the symbols of their faith.”

To do this, religious extremists in the nation should quit complaining about having to respect anti-discrimination laws. They should instead help the many religious minorities, at home and around the world, feel safe living and believing as they choose.

Issues

Discrimination In The Name of Religion

Tags

D.C. Police Officer Warns About Jan. 6 Rioters Who ‘Perceived Themselves To Be Christians’

boston — Mon, 02 Aug 2021 13:22:06 +0000

D.C. Police Officer Warns About Jan. 6 Rioters Who ‘Perceived Themselves To Be Christians’ boston Mon Aug 02, 2021 - 09:22

Authored by

Image

During the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police officer Daniel Hodges was overcome by a mob of supporters of President Donald Trump. Video taken at the scene shows him being crushed against a door while a rioter pried off his gas mask. Blood began pouring from Hodges’ mouth, and he cried out in pain.

Last week, Hodges testified before the congressional committee investigating the insurrection. He was clear about one thing: Many of the people who took part were hoisting the symbols of white Christian nationalism.

“It was clear the terrorists perceived themselves to be Christians,” Hodges remarked. “I saw the Christian flag directly to my front. Another read, ‘Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president.’ Another: ‘Jesus is king.’” Hodges said he saw one man wearing a T-shirt reading, “God, Guns, and Trump.”

In the days after the insurrection, several news outlets noted the heavy presence of Christian nationalists among the mob. As Religion News Service (RNS) reported recently, “Images from Jan. 6 back up Hodges’ recollection, showing pervasive examples of Christian nationalist sentiment. A flag that waved above the first crowd to attack and overrun police officers was adorned with a fish painted in the colors of the American flag, positioned beneath the words ‘Proud American Christian.’”

During the attack, a man named Jacob Chansley, who is known as the “QAnon shaman,” joined a mob invading the Senate chamber; once inside, Chansley shouted a prayer from the balcony expressing thanks to God for “allowing us to get rid of the communists, the globalists and the traitors within our government.”

The majority of American Christians deplore the events of Jan. 6, and countless religious leaders have condemned the assault, But, as has been noted on this blog previously, the sympathies of Christian nationalist organizations clearly lie with the men and women Hodges didn’t hesitate to label “terrorists.”

After attempting, unsuccessfully, to blame the insurrection on Antifa and Black Lives Matter, Christian nationalists have shifted their argument and are now insisting that the attack wasn’t terribly serious and are demanding that some insurrectionists who remain in jail pending trial – because judges have determined that they’re a danger to the community – be released.

This is where we are: On Jan. 6, 2021, an out-of-control mob of insurrectionists, fueled by lies spoon-fed to them by Trump, stormed the U.S. Capitol, overran barriers, assaulted more than 140 police officers and vandalized our nation’s most visible symbol of democracy to the tune of at least $30 million.

Christian nationalists could have denounced this. They could have sided with simple decency and the rule of law. Instead, they’ve deployed a fusillade of lies as they stand shoulder to shoulder with domestic terrorists.

That tells all you need to know about the clear threat Christian nationalism presents to our democracy, our values and even our very existence as a nation.

Photo: D.C. police offer Daniel Hodges. Screenshot from C-SPAN.

Tags

Religious Right

U.S. Capitol

Donald Trump

Memo To Sen. Kennedy: Religious Tests Are Illegal In America

boston — Fri, 30 Jul 2021 13:26:13 +0000

Memo To Sen. Kennedy: Religious Tests Are Illegal In America boston Fri Jul 30, 2021 - 09:26

Authored by

Image

As Americans United President and CEO Rachel Laser noted yesterday, U.S. Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) badgered Hampton Dellinger, President Joe Biden’s nominee to be assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, about his personal religious beliefs.

This was highly inappropriate, and it also runs afoul of a section of the U.S. Constitution that specifically states that there can be no religious test for public office.

The exchange occurred Wednesday during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee after Kennedy began aggressively questioning Dellinger about a tweet Dellinger issued years ago in which he observed that most attempts to ban legal abortion come from Republican men.

After lecturing Dellinger about abortion, Kennedy demanded to know, “Do you believe in god?” Dellinger attempted to reply that he is a man of faith, but Kennedy continued to talk over him. (You can see the video here at 2:07:12.)

There’s a question I’d like to ask Kennedy: Have you read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution? If you’ll take the time to do that, you’ll see the following: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Let’s be clear about this: Whether Dellinger worships one god, five gods, 20 gods or no god has no bearing on his ability to be a lawyer for the U.S. government. Asking people about their religious beliefs during a job interview is illegal in most instances – and it’s certainly inappropriate for a government position.

What’s even more galling is that Kennedy was one of the GOP senators who went ballistic in 2017 after U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Amy Coney Barrett, who at that time was under consideration for a federal judgeship, some admittedly clumsily worded questions about how her religious beliefs might affect her rulings.

Guess what? If Kennedy believes it wasn’t all right for Feinstein to question Barrett about her faith, it’s not all right for Kennedy to do it to Dellinger. There’s a word for believing that it is, as Laser noted yesterday – “hypocrisy.”

“In a democracy that values the fundamental American principle of church-state separation, U.S. senators don’t get to ask a nominee for public office whether they believe in god during a Senate hearing,” Laser said. “That’s a flat-out violation of our Constitution’s promise that there is no religious test for public office. It’s also grossly hypocritical to witness Sen. Kennedy, who claims to be a champion of religious freedom, so blatantly deny that freedom to others.”

Sen. Kennedy, you owe Hampton Dellinger an apology.

Issues

Government Support Of Religion

Tags

Article VI

DOJ

Senate

After 65 Years Of ‘In God We Trust,’ The Problems With The National Motto Have Never Been Clearer

boston — Thu, 29 Jul 2021 12:38:53 +0000

After 65 Years Of ‘In God We Trust,’ The Problems With The National Motto Have Never Been Clearer boston Thu Jul 29, 2021 - 08:38

Authored by

Government Support Of Religion

Image

Sixty-five years ago tomorrow, President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law a resolution that enshrined “In God We Trust” as our nation’s official motto.

“In God We Trust” is the nation’s first official motto — the de facto motto “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one) was never legally codified. That same day, July 30, 1956, the 84th Congress also passed a measure to require all American currency to include “In God We Trust,” which is why your Abe Lincolns and Alexander Hamiltons have the phrase on their backsides.

The phrase first appeared on U.S. coins to respond to increased religiosity during the Civil War, being stamped on a two-cent coin issued in 1864. After appearing on most coins until 1873, the motto disappeared but would sometimes reappear. It wasn’t until the Eisenhower administration that it was permanently enshrined on American currency.

There are various reasons offered for the introduction of “In God We Trust” in the 1950s. The most oft-cited reason – and the one mentioned by U.S. Rep. Charles Bennet (D-Fla.) on the House floor – was to distinguish the United States from the Soviet Union, which enforced state atheism. Bennet proclaimed, “In these days when imperialistic and materialistic communism seeks to attack and destroy freedom, we should continually look for ways to strengthen the foundations of our freedom.” He continued by arguing that “while the sentiment of trust in God is universal and timeless, these particular four words ‘In God We Trust’ are indigenous to our country.”

Yet the Cold War narrative hides more than it reveals. In his book One Nation Under God, Kevin M. Kruse, a professor of history at Princeton University, points toward Eisenhower’s revolutionizing of religion in American society as a catalyst for the motto change. Eisenhower is the only president to have been baptized during his time in office. He was close friends with Billy Graham, instituted opening prayer before cabinet meetings and cemented the idea that America is, should be, and always was, a religious nation.

Kruse goes on to argue that corporations in America were the head engineers of this religious revival, but the historical picture he paints of Eisenhower and the religious extremists before him is damning for the Cold War argument about the adoption of “In God We Trust.” That legacy makes it much more difficult to believe that adoption of the motto had a secular rationale, as advocates sometimes claim.

While the jurisprudence around the issue, which largely argues that the phrase has become so ceremonial that it has lost any religious favor, is often invoked by motto defenders, it is ultimately unconvincing. The phrase is religious, and, above all, reflects Christian principles. “In God” evokes a traditional, singular god, a belief that excludes some religions. The “We” groups all Americans, religious or not, into a crowd of singular believers; should you not believe, you feel less American. And with “Trust,” it asks of Americans to have faith in a divine providence many don’t trust.

The language of the motto, combined with a history that pushed church-state separation to its limits, makes “In God We Trust” anything but the secular ceremonial phrase many people believe it to be. Perhaps it’s time we let the phrase go. Ultimately, people of all religions and none should feel like they are a part of the United States without having to profess a trust in God. Those who do trust in God should be able to express that belief freely, so long as they do not abuse the law to impose their religious beliefs on others.

As for a replacement motto, there are a lot of possibilities. E Pluribus Unum is always a great one to fall back on, but the state motto of Oregon, “She Flies with Her Own Wings,” has a nice ring to it, too. I’m personally a fan of “Cultivate Peace and Harmony with All '' or “Moderation, Perseverance, and Firmness,” two phrases from George Washington’s farewell address. Any of these are more inclusive, and truer to American ideals, than “In God We Trust.”

Issues

Nontheists' Rights

Tags

To Understand Christian Nationalism, Read These Two Articles

boston — Wed, 28 Jul 2021 13:24:19 +0000

To Understand Christian Nationalism, Read These Two Articles boston Wed Jul 28, 2021 - 09:24

Authored by

Image

Two important articles have just been published about Christian nationalism and the political goals of its adherents.

At Salon, writer Paul Rosenberg has an insightful piece about the latest news concerning Project Blitz, a Christian nationalist effort to pass repressive, theocratic laws in as many states as possible.

As Rosenberg notes, exposure of Project Blitz by Frederick Clarkson, a longtime AU ally and researcher, and a coalition of groups including AU has led its backers to try to engage in stealth tactics. But when your goal is to pass bills in states, you can only be so quiet about it. Rosenberg also gives a shout-out to AU President and CEO Rachel Laser, quoting Clarkson who lauds Laser for making opposition to Project Blitz “a signature campaign of her presidency.”

Rosenberg’s story is lengthy, but it’s packed with useful information, including an important historical analysis that puts Project Blitz in context with the current backlash against critical race theory and outlines what we might expect next from these religious extremists.

The second must-read is an interview with Robert P. Jones, founder of Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), at Religion Dispatches. PRRI regularly publishes compelling research that helps us understand white Christian nationalism and the people who cling to it.

Jones, author of the recent book White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity, points out the profound demographic trends under way in America – and how they might push Christian nationalists to embrace even more extreme views.

“We’ve gone from 54% white Christian to just 44% since Obama was first elected, or a drop of about 1% per year,” Jones told Religion Dispatches. “Previous generations of white Christians had the convenience of being able to support participation for all, at least at the rhetorical level, because their dominance wasn’t under threat. Today the question is whether these Christians only support democracy in instrumental ways. And the answer we are getting from many quarters is that they were supportive of democracy as long as they were in charge.”

(Jones penned a powerful article for Church & State recently, which you can read here.)

Knowledge is power. Read these articles to get both.

Issues

Public Religion Research (PRRI)

Tags

Religious Right

Fred Clarkson

Project Blitz

Litigation Over A School’s Name Change Displays Christian Nationalist Paranoia At Its Finest

boston — Tue, 27 Jul 2021 12:47:24 +0000

Litigation Over A School’s Name Change Displays Christian Nationalist Paranoia At Its Finest boston Tue Jul 27, 2021 - 08:47

Authored by

Image

Most of the time when social conservatives air their grievances about removing Confederate statues or renaming schools that honor racist figures, they are inspired by a sense of cultural resentment of changing times. A recent lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Society, a conservative law firm associated with the Religious Right, makes that resentment painfully obvious.

Canyon Hills High School, a school in San Diego, recently voted to drop the name Junipero Serra High School, after a student-led campaign called for a name change. Junipero Serra was a Catholic missionary in California in the 1700s and has a controversial legacy as a colonialist and abuser of Native Americans. In response, the Thomas More Society filed a lawsuit against the school on behalf of local residents. The lawsuit alleges that the renaming disfavors Catholicism and failed to follow proper procedures.

Before getting into the nitty-gritty of this complaint, we should first remember that the Thomas More Society was deeply involved with Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election and that most of their election lawsuits were quickly thrown out of court. We ought to keep those embarrassing lawsuits in mind as we investigate this one.

Let’s first tackle their portrayal of Serra, who in 2015 was named a saint by the Catholic Church. You would think that a complaint that so aggressively argues that the school board misrepresented history by portraying Serra as a colonialist would try to be more evenhanded, but the Thomas More Society holds no bars in stretching the facts. The Society often claims the historiographical record holds Serra as a holy, unimpeachable figure, yet historians have been anything but conclusive on him. While Serra is acknowledged to have done some things right, he forced Native Americans to convert to Christianity and abused Native converts who rebelled. Serra was fundamentally a colonialist, a fact that one cannot historically argue against; he came to the United States under the command of the Spanish crown, and he operated his mission under Spanish control.

Another odd claim by the complaint is that removing a saint’s name from the school somehow violates church-state separation since the new name supposedly favors indigenous religion. But removing the name of a Catholic saint from a public school seems like something that would satisfy constitutional protections for church-state separation, considering that “Canyon Hills” (contrary to the complaint’s assertions that it’s an indigenous name) is based on the geography of the school’s region – an area with canyons that is occasionally referred to as “the Island in the Hills” – so, in other words, is an entirely secular name.

The Thomas More Society also seems to believe that picking a rattlesnake as the school’s mascot favors indigenous religion because the rattlesnake is “a sacred symbol” of local indigenous tribes. It’s quite unlikely that the school had any religious motivation in picking the new mascot; more likely, the school chose the rattlesnake because it is perceived to be a “fierce” creature, like mountain lions, bears, eagles, etc. (No one ever names a football team after, say, mice.)

But more obvious than the contradictions posed by The Thomas More Society’s lawsuit is the Christian nationalist animosity toward changing times and paranoia that their regressive view of society is being “persecuted.” It only takes two paragraphs for the Thomas More lawyers to dip their toes into right-wing culture wars:

“In the summer of 2020, Black Lives Matter protests and other demonstrations swept across the county, sparking an acute interest in Critical Race Theory and public erasure of symbols of colonialism – including Serra himself. Statues of Serra were defaced and attacked, and one of his churches was burned in an attack that represented animosity toward the Catholic faith and its role in California history.”

The inclusion of critical race theory in a case about religion seems abstruse, but it fits with the Society’s attempt to characterize the principal and school as filled with leftist radicals who are intent on annihilating Catholicism. Besides being a questionable legal maneuver, the mention of critical race theory, which every right-wing pundit is losing their heads over, and the hyperbolic threat of anti-Catholic “bigotry,” shows just how much paranoid politics drives the Religious Right.

As easy as it is to disparage these folks for being nutty, it’s worth remembering that some of them have become genuinely convinced their livelihoods are being threatened by a shadowy liberal force manifesting itself in school name changes. That, of course, is no excuse for the harm they threaten against others based on their religious beliefs. But it is a reminder that the best way to counter right-wing fervor is to wield separation of church and state as a protective shield, not as a fiery sword like religious extremists are intent on doing.

Photo by Flickr user HarshLight.

Tags

Remembering Bob Meneilly, A Cleric Who Championed Church-State Separation

boston — Mon, 26 Jul 2021 13:45:23 +0000

Remembering Bob Meneilly, A Cleric Who Championed Church-State Separation boston Mon Jul 26, 2021 - 09:45

Authored by

History and Origins of Church-State Separation

Image

Before we had the internet and digital news, I used to begin my days at Americans United by unfolding a paper copy of The New York Times and scanning the headlines for news about separation of church and state.

On Aug. 29, 1993, I spotted an op-ed that blew me away. Written by Dr. Robert H. Meneilly, a Presbyterian minister who pastored the Village Church in Prairie Village, Kan., it began with a bold statement: “Religion can be the greatest thing on earth or the worst. It can be the greatest healing therapy in society, or the greatest hazard to a society’s health. It can be a democratic republic’s greatest good or its worst threat.”

What followed was a power broadside against the political machinations of the Religious Right. My first question after finishing it was, “Who is this man?” My second was, “How can we work with him?”

I soon learned that Meneilly, who died July 20 at age 96, was no stranger to social justice. He worked for civil rights in the 1960s, women’s rights in the 1970s and LGBTQ rights in the 1980s and ’90s. He recognized religious extremism for what it was: a threat to everyone’s rights. He knew he had to speak out.

Bob’s op-ed was an edited version of a sermon, and he graciously allowed Church & State to reprint the entire presentation in the February 1994 issue. Reading it again this weekend, I was especially struck by this passage: “The issue of this sermon is not politics, but religion. If we continue to let the historic wall between church and state erode away, religion will suffer more than the state. Religious Right extremists want nothing less than to force our American society to enact into law their exclusive religious views, and thereby impose them on everyone. But ours is a constitutional republic made up of many different religions – where every individual’s rights are guaranteed and all voices are heard. The Religious Right seeks a theocracy that legislates and enforces its particular vision of God’s law.”

Two things jump out at me: Bob knew how to tell it like it is, and those words could have been written last week.

After his Times opinion column, Meneilly and several other pastors in Johnson County, Kan., formed the Mainstream Coalition, a Kansas-based group that worked to counter religious extremism. It was an opportune time. TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition was taking over state branches of the Republican Party in state after state, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family had formed state affiliates to pressure legislators to enact repressive “pro-family” legislation that was anything but. Bob and his clerical allies struck back with force, making it clear to millions of Americans that these budding theocrats did not speak for all Christians and certainly not for all people of faith.

He once told the Kansas City Star, “I have always believed in the preservation of the separation between church and state. My main point was that our constitutional liberties are not anti-religious. Sometimes the Religious Right claims they are.”

Throughout his professional life, Bob Meneilly worked to expand freedom and oppose those who would use their religion as a cudgel to keep others down. The stands he took were often not popular at the time, but they were always right. He leaves quite a legacy. Let’s honor it by carrying forth his work.

Photo: Screenshot from the Village Church website.

Issues

Tags

Five Cases That SCOTUS Could Use To Barrel Through The Wall Of Separation

boston — Thu, 22 Jul 2021 12:55:31 +0000

Five Cases That SCOTUS Could Use To Barrel Through The Wall Of Separation boston Thu Jul 22, 2021 - 08:55

Authored by

Image

Although the Supreme Court’s 2020–2021 term has ended, trepidation about cases in the pipeline for the next term is growing. The court has already agreed to hear a variety of highly charged cases during its 2021-22 session, and other cases it may decide to hear could have detrimental results for church-state separation.

Here are the top cases that Americans United is watching carefully:

Carson v. Makin: This case deals with one of American United’s bread and butter issues: school vouchers. Maine school districts that don’t operate their own secondary schools offer to pay students’ tuition at private schools, so long as the private schools don’t use the money for religious instruction and don’t unlawfully discriminate. Yet a group of Maine parents wants to use funding from this voucher-like program to pay for religious education of their children at religious schools that have discriminatory policies. The court granted review of this case. A bad ruling in this case could mean that states must include religious schools in voucher programs, even when that funding is used for religious or discriminatory purposes. We’re all on the edge of our seats to see how the justices decide this one.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: The court has also agreed to hear this case, which has been the focus of intense speculation by every legal reporter in the nation since it could overturn Roe v. Wade. While the case does not explicitly involve religion-based legal claims, religious motivations play a large role in anti-abortion legislation and the anti-abortion movement. A ruling in favor of the deeply restrictive Mississippi anti-abortion law at issue in the case would be another step toward theocratic control of American law.

Dignity Health v. Minton: A Catholic hospital in California canceled Evan Minton’s scheduled hysterectomy once it learned that he is a transgender man. In response to Minton’s suit, Dignity Health raised a freedom-of-religion defense, arguing that it had a right to refuse to provide medical treatment that violates its religious beliefs. The court has not decided whether it will hear the case, but if it does, a ruling in favor of the Catholic hospital would have dangerous implications. With more and more hospitals around the country having a Catholic affiliation – Dignity Health is the fifth largest healthcare system in the nation – a ruling in Dignity’s favor could give a substantial proportion of the country’s hospitals carte blanche to refuse to provide procedures they disapprove for religious reasons. For example, some religiously affiliated hospitals refuse to perform tubal ligations in conjunction with caesarian sections or to terminate a pregnancy even when it’s clear that the fetus has no chance of surviving and the mother’s life is in danger. A bad ruling here could even open the door for religiously affiliated hospitals to simply refuse to treat LGBTQ people based on a purported religion-based “right” to discriminate. This is a prime example of when religious beliefs could be used to acutely harm others.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston: The city of Boston, which allows private groups to request to fly a flag on a city-owned flagpole outside city hall, rejected an application by Harold Shurtleff to fly the Christian flag. Shurtleff sued, making a freedom-of-speech argument, but federal trial and appellate courts ruled that flags on the pole are government speech, not private speech, so the city has the right to decide what flags it flies. The appellate court explained that flying the Christian flag on the city’s flagpole could also violate the separation of church and state, and the court cited a friend-of-the-court brief Americans United filed in the case. Should the Supreme Court grant review and rule in favor of Shurtleff, the decision could be another major blow to church-state separation.

Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell: New York requires employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover medically necessary abortions but provides a religious exemption to tax-exempt non-profits that exist to inculcate religious values and primarily employ and serve people of their own religion. The limited scope of the exemption makes sense; a broader exemption would allow religious organizations to impose anti-abortion religious beliefs on people who do not share those beliefs. Yet the Diocese of Albany wants New York to expand the exemption to include all religious organizations, ultimately asking the court to overturn the precedent that makes it harder to use religion to abridge people’s rights. Were the court to agree to hear this case and rule in favor of the diocese, religious organizations that employ an ideologically diverse array of people could force their religious beliefs on their employees, refusing to provide coverage for medically necessary abortions.

There are other cases with church-state significance that Americans United is keeping an eye on, such as a case (FBI v. Fazaga) involving FBI surveillance of individuals simply because they were Muslim. So, the fight for church-state separation will be intense next term, but no matter how the odds are stacked, Americans United is ready to throw some punches.

If you want to hear more about where the Supreme Court is going and the future legal landscape of church-state separation, join us Aug. 3 for a presentation and Q&A session with AU attorneys.

Issues

Discrimination In The Name of Religion

Discrimination In Health Care

Taxpayer Funding Of Religion

Tags

display of religious symbols

reproductive choice

Abortion

neo-vouchers

Public Schools Serve The Public Good -- That's Why They Alone Deserve Taxpayer Support

boston — Wed, 21 Jul 2021 12:49:39 +0000

Public Schools Serve The Public Good -- That's Why They Alone Deserve Taxpayer Support boston Wed Jul 21, 2021 - 08:49

Authored by