Americans should have the right to believe (or not believe ) in God as the individual's right of conscience dictates. The government cannot compel anyone to attend, or refrain from attending, a religious service. In most cases, religious groups must abide by the secular law, although limited exemptions may be carved out in some cases. As advocates for religious freedom, we stand for the right of everyone to believe or not believe, but no one's religion should be an excuse to do harm to others. PROTECT THY NEIGHBOR is Americans United's campaign to prevent the use of religion to discriminate against and otherwise cause harm to individuals.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO JOIN TO RECEIVE OUR MAILINGS. SIMPLY EMAIL whkorson@gmail AND ASK TO BE PUT ON OUR LIST
2024 ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS
2024 ESSAY WINNER
JILLIAN PESKA
The Meaningful Separation of Church and State
All humans should strive to protect the greater good of others. I like to believe this was one of the ideologies the framers of our Constitution held when founding the United States Government and our First Amendment rights. Balance is attained when we acknowledge that, despite our differences, it is necessary to protect the freedoms and beliefs of those who identify as religious or not. We live in a pluralistic society. Of the hundreds of religions in America, it is immoral to subject people to one belief system.
In the Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Supreme Court Case, the act of separating church and state in terms of the law is misconstrued. Our First Amendment consists of the Free Exercise Clause and The Establishment
Clause, both protecting the religious freedoms of others. The Free Exercise Clause makes sure that people can express their religion without negatively affecting others. The Establishment Clause restricts the government from pressing a specific religion upon the people. After
familiarizing myself with the “Syllabus” and other documents directly from the Supreme Court case, for context purposes, the facts are as follows. High school football coach Joseph Kennedy routinely prayed on the playing field after games. As time passed, players on the team began to join him, and eventually, most of his team engaged in prayer after games and in the locker room. This practice was ultimately noticed, and the Principal was informed. From there, the district superintendent essentially told Kennedy to refrain from motivational speeches consisting of prayer and to dissociate himself from any prayers the students may engage in, preventing the impression of endorsement as a district employee. He complied yet continued to silently pray by himself on the field, just not directly after the game concluded; others still decided to join him.
The District's concern shifted to acknowledging that he is a government employee present on duty, and to viewers, it may seem he is publicly endorsing a specific religion. They requested that he pray in a private area after games. Kennedy continued to pray on the field and was then placed on administrative leave for “public and demonstrative religious conduct while
still on duty as an assistant coach” (Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.). He then sued, claiming the District was violating his First Amendment rights.
The most important distinction to establish in this case is whether or not Coach Kennedy was engaging in a private religious prayer. The court ruled that the District violated Kennedy’s free exercise and free speech rights. It was also concluded that the Establishment Clause doesn't apply because the government should not infringe upon private religious expression. I disagree with this ruling entirely. To define Kennedy’s prayer in the locker room, or center field, as a heavily populated game ends, to be private prayer is irrational. As a coach, he prayed in a public space on duty where others could perceive him.
Kennedy's prayer with students on the field and in the locker room infringed upon protecting those who may not identify with his religious beliefs but were subject to the team's prayer. Kennedy clarified that he has “never told any student that it was important they
participate in any religious activity” (Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist.). Though he did not enforce participation, there are social pressures that players who may not be religious or associate with a differing religion may have felt. I imagine it's not comforting when your football team joins your coach in prayer for a religion separate from your own and choosing to sustain the peer pressure to pray together rather than being the odd one out and possibly judged. When coach Joseph Kennedy began to publicly lead prayer amongst players as a government employee on duty, he unintentionally accepted the risk of imposing on the freedoms of others. This situation is comparable to the Engel v. Vitale case, which was deemed to violate The Establishment Clause In 1962. In this Supreme Court Case, a New York State law required public schools to begin their day with a prayer. Teachers guided the prayer, and students were not forced to participate. A student's parent sued, claiming this violated The Establishment Clause,
and the Supreme Court agreed that the government was endorsing religion upon students.
It feels as if the views of the Supreme Court majority failed to focus on how the individual freedoms and beliefs of others were affected by the coach endorsing his religion, among others on the field. Instead, the court described his prayer as private, when in so many ways it wasn't, along with labeling the District’s concerns with censorship and suppression. This decision can give the narrative that the court leans into the religious beliefs debated. In contrast, if the coach followed a minority religion in America, such as Judaism or the Islamic faith, and prayed on the field, many would argue that the ruling would be different.
The line separating church and state has been a continuous debate since the formation of the idea, but the true meaning becomes more important as our country ages. We must collectively acknowledge that the United States is in the absence of an official religion, and that is a beautiful thing. Balance comes in understanding that we have the freedom to believe in whatever we want as long as others' rights aren't affected. This belief system is what must be preserved in the court.
Works Cited
Supreme Court of the United States. Engel v. Vitale,
370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Supreme Court of the United States. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District,
597 U. S. (2022
President Bill Korson and Essay Contest Winner Jillian Peska
SCHOOL CHAPLAINS
Governor Signs Chaplain Bill says Satanists can’t be school chaplains.
Satanic Temple members are planning on taking advantage of a bill Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Thursday that allows volunteer chaplains to provide support services for public K-12 students.
But DeSantis says that’s not going to happen. “Some have said that if you do a school chaplain program, that somehow you’re going to have Satanists running around in all our schools,” he said at a press conference at a high school in Kissimmee, where he also signed a bill (HB 1317) giving more school access to “patriotic organizations.”
“We’re not playing those games in Florida,” De-Santis continued. “That is not a religion. That is not qualifying to be able to participate in this.”
If such a restriction occurs, it’s likely to result in a First Amendment fight in the courts. The Satanic Temple, which the IRS recognizes as a tax-exempt church, told the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida earlier in the year that it would put school chaplains in Florida if the bill became law.
Chaplains are clergy members who provide religious and spiritual care. We obviously oppose this bill because we have certificated and qualified school counselors who work within the context of a comprehensive counseling program. They help students apply academic achievement strategies, manage emotions and plan for college or the workforce. Chaplains are religious leaders who are trained to provide religious services and spiritual care.
In our opinion, this is another attempt by Christian Nationalists and other religious zealots to bring prayer into the public schools. In addition, we believe that this practice would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Bills like these are being promoted across the country by a national evangelical organization that boasts about "bringing Jesus to the classrooms of public schools."
IS THE NEW CIVICS CURRICULUM RIGHT-WING INDOCTRINATION?
TEACHERS WHO ATTENDED TRAINING SEEM TO THINK SO!
(As a former history teacher, I contacted the state and was given the link to the slides that were used in the training (which have since been taken down). I surveyed two of the slide programs: Separation of Church and State and the Declaration of Independence. I found both inadequately covered slavery, leaned toward a Christian Nationalist slant and seemed to tie our original documents towards religion.)
Bill Korson
LINK TO THE MSNBC PROGRAM ABOUT TEACHER TRAINING WITH THE NEW CIVICS CURRICULUM.
Overview:
Agenda to Restore & Protect Religious Freedom
Religious freedom means that everyone should be able to practice their religion or no religion at
all—without government interference, preference, or disfavor—so long as they don’t harm others.
But over the last four years, President Trump manipulated religious freedom in unprecedented
ways to sanction discrimination, deny access to health care, require taxpayers to fund religion,
and allow houses of worship to endorse political candidates.
The Biden-Harris administration has the opportunity and the moral
Here are the 10 things the Biden-Harris administration must do to protect religious freedom:
1. Repeal the Muslim Ban. The Muslim Ban is a breach of the American promise of religious
freedom for all. We must ensure that no one is banned from our country because of their religious
beliefs. President Trump’s Muslim and African bans have led to families being separated, people
being denied access to medical treatments, students and researchers denied permission to study here, and doctors and medical professionals who could help care for COVID-19 patients being
prohibited from entering the U.S.
2. Sign an Executive Order to Restore and Protect Religious Freedom for All Americans. The Trump administration has misused religious freedom to score political points, cause harm, discriminate, and divide our country. The Biden-Harris administration must sign an
executive order setting out principles of religious freedom that reflect current law, including the
do-no-harm principle of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The order will guide
agencies as they adopt policies to right the wrongs of the Trump administration and revoke
policies that justify discrimination.
3. Protect the Religious Freedom of People Who Use Government-Funded Social Services. The government often funds faith-based organizations to deliver social services—such as food banks, homeless shelters, and elder care. President Trump proposed rules to strip religious-freedom safeguards from vulnerable people who use these services, and even allowed
foster care agencies to use religion to discriminate against potential parents. The Biden-Harris
administration must implement robust religious-freedom protections for people seeking these taxpayer-funded services.
4. Protect Federally Funded Employees from Religious Discrimination. President
Trump’s policies allow taxpayer-funded contractors and grantees to use religion to discriminate
against their employees. The Biden-Harris administration must ensure that no one is disqualified
from a taxpayer-funded job because they are the “wrong” religion.
5. Ensure People Are Not Denied Health Care Based on Someone Else’s Religion.
The Trump administration advanced policies that allow health care workers to cite their religious
beliefs to deny Americans—particularly women and LGBTQ people—the health care and health
insurance they need. The Biden-Harris administration should rescind the policies so that no one
is denied access to health care because of someone else’s religious beliefs.
6. Support the Do No Harm Act. The Trump administration has misused the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to justify many of its harmful and discriminatory policies. The Do No Harm Act, sponsored by Vice President-elect Harris when she served in the Senate, is
designed to restore RFRA to its original intent. It will preserve the law’s power to protect religious
freedom, such as the right to wear religious attire and observe religious holidays, but also clarify
that it may not be used to harm others.
7. Fund Public Schools—Not Private Schools—with Public Funds. Open to all students, public schools help unify our diverse society. Private school vouchers, historically rooted
in efforts to evade desegregation orders after Brown v. Board of Education, undermine this vital
function by diverting public resources to fund private, often religious schools. Forcing taxpayers
to fund the religious education of others violates core principles of religious freedom. Yet,
President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos wrongly prioritized private school
vouchers and other funding for private schools, even exploiting the pandemic to do so.
8. Protect and Enforce the Johnson Amendment. The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the tax code that protects the integrity and autonomy of tax-exempt organizations,
including houses of worship, by ensuring they do not endorse or oppose political candidates. The
vast majority of Americans support the Johnson Amendment. Yet, President Trump has falsely
bragged that he “got rid” of the Johnson Amendment and has stopped enforcement of the law.
9. Ensure that Our Government Reflects Our Nation’s Religious Diversity. The Trump administration surrounded itself with members of one particular segment of a single faith—conservative evangelical Protestants—and elevated their opinions and political interests above all others. President-elect Biden and Vice President-elect Harris should build an administration that mirrors the religious diversity of our nation and maintains expertise in church-state separation.
10. Nominate Federal Judges Who Respect the Separation of Church and State.
Federal judges are confirmed for lifetime appointments, and judges who decide constitutional
questions must respect the separation of religion and government and have a record that
demonstrates they will uphold the principle that religious freedom should never be used to harm
others. During the Trump administration, 220 federal judges were confirmed, many of whom have
demonstrated that they will undermine this principle.
Americans United: Supreme Court Forces Boston To Fly Christian Flag
Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s narrow decision today in Shurtleff v. City of Boston that the city had created a limited public forum by allowing the flags of private organizations to be displayed on city flagpoles, and that First Amendment free speech protections therefore required the city to allow the Christian flag:
“Because the court found the flags were private, not government, speech, Boston no longer has a say in which flags can be flown at city hall. This decision doesn’t change the Constitution’s requirements that the government cannot promote, favor, endorse or sponsor religion.
“Nevertheless, this ruling could undermine church-state separation if it is abused in ways that end up favoring the dominant religious majority. But governments might avoid that by closing the forum at any time, as the court noted. Additionally, the flags flying above city hall would have been government speech if Boston had stated so in a policy or exercised more discretion in deciding which flags to display. Other governments might take that path.
“If a government permits this access to the majority religion, others are equally entitled to display their beliefs or non-belief, too. This decision is a reminder that groups representing religious minorities and nontheists must be given equal access to these kinds of public forums to display their own symbols.
“There are some alarming aspects about the organization pushing to fly the Christian flag at Boston City Hall. The group is dedicated to teaching ‘the next generation … with the knowledge of how America was founded as a Christian nation.’ That is Christian nationalism, which is a direct threat to church-state separation and our democracy.”
Americans United, joined by the National Council of Churches and 17 other religious and civil-rights organizations, filed an amicus brief in the case in December, urging the Supreme Court to protect religious freedom by affirming that the City of Boston should not be forced to display the Christian flag on a city hall flagpole.
SUPREME COURT UPDATE
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ people cannot be fired simply for being gay or transgender. This decision is a landmark victory for the LGBTQ community, affirming that they finally have employment protections that allow them to live as their true selves. The 6-3 decision is a major step forward in living up to our Constitution’s promise of freedom and equality for all, and it builds upon the foundation laid more than 50 years ago by LGBTQ activists, including Black and Brown trans women who fought back against police brutality and discrimination. But it only goes so far.
There is still a fight to come to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination based on religious beliefs. Today, the Supreme Court left a loophole dangerous to LGBTQ rights, explicitly reserving the question of “how doctrines protecting religious liberty interact with Title VII” for “future cases.”
This means employers who want to discriminate against LGBTQ employees now have an even greater incentive to cite their religious beliefs as a legal justification. I can’t imagine a more critical moment than during a public health crisis to make clear that the government should ensure that all of us – no matter who we are or who we love – can make a living in this country, regardless of our employer’s religious beliefs.
We continue our vital work of defending religious freedom as a shield that protects, not a sword that licenses discrimination and harm to others. See AU's take.
https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/SCOTUS%20Title%20VII%20%26%20religious%20freedom%20June%202020_0.pdf
Trump v. Pennsylvania — This case involves proposed Trump-administration rules that will allows employers and universities to invoke religious or moral beliefs to deny contraceptive coverage guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. The decision will deprive countless employees and students of access to critical reproductive healthcare. See AU's take
* Birth Control: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Supreme%20Court%20%26%20Birth%20Control%20Access%20Report%207.10.20.pdf
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru — Two fifth-grade teachers at private Catholic schools were fired for discriminatory reasons—one based on her age and the other after she was diagnosed with breast cancer. But their employers invoked the “ministerial exception,” a legal doctrine that excludes clergy and religious personnel at houses of worship and religious schools from the legal protections against employment discrimination. The decision gives broad license to treat hundreds of thousands of non-clergy employees as outside all the laws that protect workers against discrimination based on race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and gender identity. See AU's take
* Ministerial Exception: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Supreme%20Court%20%26%20Minsterial%20Exception%20Report%207.10.20.pdf
Espinoza V. Montana
SCOTUS Says that States Must Force Taxpayers to Fund Religious Education
In Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court ruled 5-4 that voucher programs must fund religious schools. Chief Justice Roberts stated: “…once a state decides to (subsidize private education), it can not disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Originally in 2018, the Montana Supreme Court struck down the state’s voucher program because it forced residents to pay for religious instruction. A national pro-voucher group appealed on behalf of three parents and SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.
In our opinion, forcing taxpayers to pay for private religious instruction is a violation of their religious freedom. Public funds should not be used for religious purposes – period! The Establishment Clause of the Constitution created, in Mr. Jefferson’s words, a “wall of separation between Church and State”.
Like Montana, three-quarters of the state constitutions, including Florida, have a provision called a No Aid Clause that is designed to protect taxpayers from funding religious practices. While the case did NOT challenge the constitutionality of the No Aid Clauses found in these 37 states, it came close to doing so. While this opinion is limited to this case, the extent of the opinion may apply to a broad range of other situations where religious freedom is asserted. The conservative justices complained that the origins of the No Aid Clauses were in the 19th century anti-Catholic movement (see Blaine Amendment). However, when states revised their constitutions, like Montana in 1972, they kept their No Aid Clauses.
In Florida, more than $1 BILLION of state funds flows indirectly to private schools, 84% of which are religious. We know that many of the schools, like 10 of the 12 religious schools in Montana, have discriminatory polices and promulgate religiously biased interpretations of science, civics and history.
Given this decision, it is more important than ever that we fight all private school voucher programs that divert desperately needed funds away from our public school system.
See AU's take: Espinoza: https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/Religious%20Freedom%20After%20Espinoza%207.2.20_1.pdf
SBA Funds and Churches
Under the new Paycheck Protection Program of the Small Business Administration, businesses with fewer than 500 employees, including faith-based organizations, are eligible to receive loans of up to $10 million, with at least 75% of the money going to cover payroll costs. The loans are in large part forgivable, so churches and other houses of worship won't have to worry about paying all the money back.
Some advocates of Church-State Separation think this is wrong. American Atheists pushed back, calling it unconstitutional. “This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” said Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists. “The Supreme Court has been clear that the government cannot subsidize worship and other inherently religious activities.”
But others indicate that if churches are excluded, it would be an Establishment Clause problem. One noted ACLU attorney suggested that as long as the money was used for its statutorily intended purpose, churches are entitled to participate. If they used it for proselytizing, there might be a concern.
In the mid 1780’s, Patrick Henry, he of “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” fame (he lasted a long time), proposed, in a general assessment bill, that Virginians’ taxes pay the salaries of ministers. Jefferson and Madison objected with Madison wring his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance”. The bill was defeated and ultimately replaced with Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, ending religious establishment in Virginia.
So the issue of using public funds to pay religious clergy reappears with the SBA program. The attached letter, signed by AU as well as other groups, makes clear that SBA funds can not be used for religious purposes and that includes the salaries of the clergy.
President Bill Korson presents the 2020 Civic Award to Dr. Kamela Patton
Voucher Schools Discriminate
The voucher programs in the state of Florida send over $1 billion worth of public money to private, mostly religious schools that have no accountability. The Orlando Sentinel (1) recently found at least 156 Christian schools with anti-gay views educated than 20,800 students with voucher scholarships. More than 80 of those schools had blatant discrimination policies that deny admission to gay children, expel or discipline students who reveal that they are gay, and refuse to educate children of LGBTQ parents. One school that received $371,000 in state voucher money told a mother, a firefighter married to a US Air Force veteran, that her children were not welcome because the married couple were two females.
Trinity Christian Academy, in Deland, received more than $1 million last year in vouchers; yet it’s handbook indicates that a student can be expelled for admitting to be gay.
Some voucher schools do an excellent job, welcoming all children regardless of faith, ethnicity, origin, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. They not only welcome LGBTQ students but teach that discrimination against anyone is wrong.
But the facts are the facts. Some of the major corporations that redirect their tax obligations to vouchers are starting to rethink their involvement. Rosen Resorts, Fifth Third Bank, and Wells Fargo have ended their contributions. A Wells Fargo spokesperson stated: “ . . . we oppose discrimination of any kind”. I tend to think that most of the contributors would feel the same way if they knew the facts!
Bills have been filed in the Florida Senate (S-56 Rouson) and Florida House (HB45 Eskamani) that would prohibit private schools that deny enrollment to students based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, disability, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity” from participating in the voucher program. I spoke to all three members of the Collier County legislative delegation and two representatives told me that they would NOT support this bill.
What do we do?
- Write our legislators that schools that receive PUBLIC funds should NEVER discriminate against any students based or sexual orientation or identity or any other reason.
- Write to the companies that contribute to the voucher programs and educate them about the degree of discrimination.
- Inform our school boards, and city and county officials of these discriminatory practices within the voucher program.
SCOTUS MASTERPIECE CAKE DECISION CONFUSING
The Supreme Court dodged the question "Can a baker refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs". While the court ruled for the baker, the decision made it clear that discrimination based on religion was not acceptable. The decision was very narrow and limited to the specifics of the case. AU president and CEO Rachel Laser wrote that " . . . it does not change the long-standing rule that businesses open to the public must be open to all. As we have long said, religious freedom should act as a shield to protect religious exercise, not as a sword to harm and discriminate against others."
COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD CHALLENGED TO ADD CREATIONISM TO SCIENCE CURRICULUM
AU fully supports the use of sound science in public schools and in public policy. We believe that the constitutional principle of church-state separation gives public servants and public school teachers the freedom to believe – or not believe – as they see fit while ensuring that public policy decisions and public school curricula are supported by scientific evidence.
We believe that public schools should educate students on issues such as evolution, climate change and sex education in a way that does not reference religious teachings. That’s why we continue to fight against attacks on sound science in the public education system. We track and oppose anti-science legislation, such as the bills that were proposed and died in the Florida legislature this year. And we challenge public schools that try to teach creationism as scientific fact.
NEW FLORIDA LAW (7055) ATTACKS CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION
On March 11, the governor signed into law an education bill that expanded existing vouchers, created a new voucher and requires public schools to display "In God We Trust". Hope Scholarships are vouchers offered to students who are "bullied, harassed or hazed"in the public schools to attend private and/or religious schools which do not have to accept them and offer no legal protections. The program does nothing with the bullies. This is another fake voucher scheme to take money away from the public schools.
The new law also expands the Tax Credit Scholarship scheme and creates an entirely new revenue stream. The total next year may exceed $1 BILLION. This scheme is clearly illegal but we have been told that we lack "standing" to challenge it.
Lastly, the law requires that every school in Florida display "In God We Trust". Given ruling on the Ten Commandments, how can this new display be Constitutional.
Rob Boston addresses the crowd. Rob and the AU Naples Board
NEW ADDRESS:
6017 Pine Ridge Rd. #111
Naples, FL 34119
-----------------------------
Public Funds for Religious Instruction?
The Florida Tax Credit Scholarship channels tax payer dollars (perhaps $1 BILLION next year) to religious schoolsIs that OK? Well, in the 2012 election, a referendum item labeled Amendment 8 asked that very question – should public dollars be used for religious activities. The answer was a resounding and emphatic NO. The Florida Supreme Court also said NO. In 2006, it struck down the similar Opportunity Scholarship Program under Article IX of the Florida Constitution and left alone a lower court ruling that it also violated Article 1. The current Florida Tax Credit Scholarship simply relies on a different mechanism for channeling tax payer dollars to religious schools. The Florida School Boards Association, the Florida Congress of Parents and Teachers (PTA), the Florida Education Association, the Florida Association of School Administrators, the League of Women Voters of Florida, The Florida State Conference of Branches of the NAACP, a large number of Florida residents and “friends of the Court” oppose it. Just like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. So the Florida voters said NO in 2012 and the Florida Supreme Court said NO in 2006. No public funds to support religious instruction! Keep Church and State separate! If you agree, follow and friend us on Facebook (AU-Naples) and visit our website (www.au-naples.org). You might even want to join.
JOHNSON AMENDMENT UNDER ATTACK
The Johnson Amendment is a federal law that protects all 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations, including houses of worship, by making it illegal for them to endorse or oppose political candidates. It’s widely supported by religious and denomination organizations, faith leaders and other nonprofits, as well as the vast majority of Americans. Yet, President Donald Trump and a few members of Congress are taking steps to repeal and weaken the law. The language in the bill prevents the IRS from investigating houses of worship that violate the Johnson Amendment unless the IRS commissioner first signs off on the investigation and reports it to Congress. By adding administrative hurdles to the law, Congress is attempting to prevent any investigations into violations by houses of worship, therefore crippling the Johnson Amendment as it applies to those entities.
