Rhode Island Police banned an elderly blind woman from visiting her local park because she was handing out copies of the Gospel of John. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Gail Blair was a nurse at Johns Hopkins.  But, she walked away from nursing in 1989 and toward an unexpected encounter with the police. A degenerative condition that causes gradual vision loss drove Gail away from nursing.  At just 37 years of age, she could no longer see.  She and her husband moved to a place just about a block away from Wilcox Park and Westerly Public Library.  She learned how to independently navigate the sidewalks that lead to and from her home and sit in the park. As passersby strolled past in this 10-acre park, Gail would engage them in conversation, telling them about Jesus and sharing with them a copy of the Gospel of John.  In 2019, park authorities accused this 63-year old blind woman of “accosting” park goers and blamed her for littering when they found copies of the Gospel of John on the ground.  They asked the police to ban her from the park under threat of arrest if she were to trespass in the future.  Sighted persons are free to cross into the park and have conversations with anyone, but park officials called the police on a blind woman who shared her faith with others. First Liberty and its network attorneys filed a charge of discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights because banning a blind woman from entering a public park simply because she offers people she meets religious material is outrageous and discriminatory.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Rhode Island Police banned an elderly blind woman from visiting her local park because she was handing out copies of the Gospel of John. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Gail Blair was a nurse at Johns Hopkins.  But, she walked away from nursing in 1989 and toward an unexpected encounter with the police. A degenerative condition that causes gradual vision loss drove Gail away from nursing.  At just 37 years of age, she could no longer see.  She and her husband moved to a place just about a block away from Wilcox Park and Westerly Public Library.  She learned how to independently navigate the sidewalks that lead to and from her home and sit in the park. As passersby strolled past in this 10-acre park, Gail would engage them in conversation, telling them about Jesus and sharing with them a copy of the Gospel of John.  In 2019, park authorities accused this 63-year old blind woman of “accosting” park goers and blamed her for littering when they found copies of the Gospel of John on the ground.  They asked the police to ban her from the park under threat of arrest if she were to trespass in the future.  Sighted persons are free to cross into the park and have conversations with anyone, but park officials called the police on a blind woman who shared her faith with others. First Liberty and its network attorneys filed a charge of discrimination with the Rhode Island Commission on Human Rights because banning a blind woman from entering a public park simply because she offers people she meets religious material is outrageous and discriminatory.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Police Ban Blind Women from Local Park

A newly naturalized citizen, Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that the phrase “so help me God” in her naturalization ceremony was a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, the courts did not agree. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. America’s newest citizens start their official lives as Americans with the words, “so help me God.”  One new citizen took advantage of her new rights as an American to sue Congress. Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that those four little words—"so help me God”—violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.  She asked a court to invalidate the phrase and enjoin its use during her naturalization ceremony.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that request. The First Circuit concluded that, “Recent developments in Establishment Clause jurisprudence . . . suggest that the mere presence of a historical pattern now carries more weight.”  One of those “recent developments” was First Liberty’s case at the Supreme Court of the United States: American Legion v. AHA.  Judge Juan Torruella, writing for the First Circuit, concluded that American Legion approves the use of “so help me God” because such words are “a ceremonial, longstanding practice” that lack “a discriminatory intent” and, therefore, bear a presumption of constitutionality.   Thus, thanks to the American Legion case, and the analysis of Judge Torruella, these four words that have joined the 136 other words to make up this nearly 100-year old oath will be among the first words America’s newest citizens get to say well in to the future. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

A newly naturalized citizen, Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that the phrase “so help me God” in her naturalization ceremony was a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, the courts did not agree. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. America’s newest citizens start their official lives as Americans with the words, “so help me God.”  One new citizen took advantage of her new rights as an American to sue Congress. Olga Paule Perrier-Bilbo sued Congress claiming that those four little words—"so help me God”—violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.  She asked a court to invalidate the phrase and enjoin its use during her naturalization ceremony.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected that request. The First Circuit concluded that, “Recent developments in Establishment Clause jurisprudence . . . suggest that the mere presence of a historical pattern now carries more weight.”  One of those “recent developments” was First Liberty’s case at the Supreme Court of the United States: American Legion v. AHA.  Judge Juan Torruella, writing for the First Circuit, concluded that American Legion approves the use of “so help me God” because such words are “a ceremonial, longstanding practice” that lack “a discriminatory intent” and, therefore, bear a presumption of constitutionality.   Thus, thanks to the American Legion case, and the analysis of Judge Torruella, these four words that have joined the 136 other words to make up this nearly 100-year old oath will be among the first words America’s newest citizens get to say well in to the future. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

“So Help Me God” is Constitutional

South Bay United Pentecostal Church in California asked the United States Supreme Court to invalidate a state ban on the size of religious gatherings of more than ten people.  Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The COVID-19 pandemic gave the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court something to think about—and not just washing their hands. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a church asked the court to invalidate the State of California’s ban on religious gatherings of more than ten people.  On the eve of the Supreme Court’s review of that claim, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded that limitation to 25% of a church’s occupancy or 100 people, whichever is fewer.  Four of the Justices agreed that California’s restrictions treated places of worship less favorably than comparable secular businesses.  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wondered why churches were required to cap attendance at 100 people or 25% when “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries” did not. “The Church and its congregants” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses.”  And, since “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices,” he observed, why not churchgoers? In the end, the case becomes something of an academic exercise, binding only on the parties to the case.  Still, it’s quite concerning that only four of the nine Justices of the nation’s highest court would conclude, as Justice Kavanaugh did that California “may not discriminate against religion” even in a pandemic. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

South Bay United Pentecostal Church in California asked the United States Supreme Court to invalidate a state ban on the size of religious gatherings of more than ten people.  Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. The COVID-19 pandemic gave the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court something to think about—and not just washing their hands. In South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, a church asked the court to invalidate the State of California’s ban on religious gatherings of more than ten people.  On the eve of the Supreme Court’s review of that claim, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded that limitation to 25% of a church’s occupancy or 100 people, whichever is fewer.  Four of the Justices agreed that California’s restrictions treated places of worship less favorably than comparable secular businesses.  Justice Kavanaugh, writing for Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, wondered why churches were required to cap attendance at 100 people or 25% when “factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries” did not. “The Church and its congregants” Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “simply want to be treated equally to comparable secular businesses.”  And, since “California already trusts its residents and any number of businesses to adhere to proper social distancing and hygiene practices,” he observed, why not churchgoers? In the end, the case becomes something of an academic exercise, binding only on the parties to the case.  Still, it’s quite concerning that only four of the nine Justices of the nation’s highest court would conclude, as Justice Kavanaugh did that California “may not discriminate against religion” even in a pandemic. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

The Supreme Court Weighs In On COVID-19

Governing public health is an important task, but it is not more important than following the Constitution. If people can practice social distancing and go to Kroger or Home Depot, then they should be allowed to gather in a similar fashion for their weekly religious service. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. “But what of that enduring Constitution in times like these? Does it mean something different because society is desperate for a cure or prescriptions?” Those are among the opening words of Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, a federal judge of a federal district court in Kentucky, as he issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church.  We filed for a TRO in that case because Kentucky’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak had prevented in-person religious gatherings, but did not restrict other secular gatherings like it.  So, while Kentuckians could visit their local grocery store or hardware store, following proper social distancing measures, they could not employ the same social distancing measures and attend in-person religious meetings.  To that, Judge Tatenhove said, “If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.” Certainly, protecting the public health is an important task of governing, but not if it comes at the expense of the Constitution.  As Judge Tatenhove put it, “It would be easy to put [the Constitution] on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient.  But that is not our tradition.  Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Governing public health is an important task, but it is not more important than following the Constitution. If people can practice social distancing and go to Kroger or Home Depot, then they should be allowed to gather in a similar fashion for their weekly religious service. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. “But what of that enduring Constitution in times like these? Does it mean something different because society is desperate for a cure or prescriptions?” Those are among the opening words of Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, a federal judge of a federal district court in Kentucky, as he issued a temporary restraining order on behalf of Tabernacle Baptist Church.  We filed for a TRO in that case because Kentucky’s response to the COVID-19 outbreak had prevented in-person religious gatherings, but did not restrict other secular gatherings like it.  So, while Kentuckians could visit their local grocery store or hardware store, following proper social distancing measures, they could not employ the same social distancing measures and attend in-person religious meetings.  To that, Judge Tatenhove said, “If social distancing is good enough for Home Depot and Kroger, it is good enough for in-person religious services which, unlike the foregoing, benefit from constitutional protection.” Certainly, protecting the public health is an important task of governing, but not if it comes at the expense of the Constitution.  As Judge Tatenhove put it, “It would be easy to put [the Constitution] on the shelf in times like this, to be pulled down and dusted off when more convenient.  But that is not our tradition.  Its enduring quality requires that it be respected even when it is hard.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

If You Can Go to Home Depot, You Can Go to Church

Governor Andy Beshear and others have been preventing in person worship services despite churches’ willingness to adhere to social distancing and appropriate hygiene guidelines while allowing gyms, stores and the like to re-open. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It seems that some state officials think that Americans who go to church only go to church.  Maybe that’s an overstatement, but it at least appears that Governor Andy Beshear, and others, treat religious Americans differently.  The lockdowns associated with COVID-19 suggest that some officials think that Americans are capable of shopping safely, but religious Americans are incapable of worshipping safely.  In a per curiam decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wondered at this distinction.  The litigants, church members, simply wanted to be treated equally.  The court said, “They are willing to practice social distancing.  They are willing to follow any hygiene requirements.” And, yet, the Court explained, “The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.” Then the Court asked this, “aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another?  How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?” The Sixth Circuit enjoined Governor Beshear’s order preventing in-person worship services.  After all, the Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Governor Andy Beshear and others have been preventing in person worship services despite churches’ willingness to adhere to social distancing and appropriate hygiene guidelines while allowing gyms, stores and the like to re-open. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. It seems that some state officials think that Americans who go to church only go to church.  Maybe that’s an overstatement, but it at least appears that Governor Andy Beshear, and others, treat religious Americans differently.  The lockdowns associated with COVID-19 suggest that some officials think that Americans are capable of shopping safely, but religious Americans are incapable of worshipping safely.  In a per curiam decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wondered at this distinction.  The litigants, church members, simply wanted to be treated equally.  The court said, “They are willing to practice social distancing.  They are willing to follow any hygiene requirements.” And, yet, the Court explained, “The Governor has offered no good reason for refusing to trust the congregants who promise to use care in worship in just the same way it trusts accountants, lawyers, and laundromat workers to do the same.” Then the Court asked this, “aren’t the two groups of people often the same people—going to work on one day and going to worship on another?  How can the same person be trusted to comply with social-distancing and other health guidelines in secular settings but not be trusted to do the same in religious settings?” The Sixth Circuit enjoined Governor Beshear’s order preventing in-person worship services.  After all, the Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Governor Allows Grocery Shopping, But Not Church Worship

First Liberty Institute is asking Congress to provide immunity from lawsuits to houses of worship and religious nonprofits during this world-wide pandemic. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. All of us are hopeful for the day everyone is declared immune from the threat of COVID-19.  Recently, hundreds of pastors and religious leaders sent a letter to members of Congress asking for a different kind of immunity: from lawsuits. As Kelly Shackelford, our firm’s president said in written testimony submitted to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, “Whether Orthodox Jewish synagogues in New York, inner-city churches in Houston, or faith-based non-profits providing spiritual and humanitarian relief from coast to coast, these religious organizations and their leaders are each concerned about a new threat to our nation’s faith communities: a swarm of lawsuits blaming houses of worship and religious ministries for any person who attended a religious gathering or received food or shelter from a charity or ministry and subsequently contracted COVID-19.” Sure, the lawsuits might ultimately prove meritless, but should churches, synagogues, and others really have to litigate these claims?  That’s why we worked to spearhead a letter signed by nearly 300 religious leaders around the country, asking Congress to include immunity from lawsuit for America’s houses of worship as they reopen.  Churches, synagogues, and America’s houses of worship have provided critical care, comfort, and calm in the midst of the uncertainty caused by a worldwide pandemic.  They should not be punished for their many kindnesses by a wave of lawsuits when this is all over. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

First Liberty Institute is asking Congress to provide immunity from lawsuits to houses of worship and religious nonprofits during this world-wide pandemic. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. All of us are hopeful for the day everyone is declared immune from the threat of COVID-19.  Recently, hundreds of pastors and religious leaders sent a letter to members of Congress asking for a different kind of immunity: from lawsuits. As Kelly Shackelford, our firm’s president said in written testimony submitted to the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, “Whether Orthodox Jewish synagogues in New York, inner-city churches in Houston, or faith-based non-profits providing spiritual and humanitarian relief from coast to coast, these religious organizations and their leaders are each concerned about a new threat to our nation’s faith communities: a swarm of lawsuits blaming houses of worship and religious ministries for any person who attended a religious gathering or received food or shelter from a charity or ministry and subsequently contracted COVID-19.” Sure, the lawsuits might ultimately prove meritless, but should churches, synagogues, and others really have to litigate these claims?  That’s why we worked to spearhead a letter signed by nearly 300 religious leaders around the country, asking Congress to include immunity from lawsuit for America’s houses of worship as they reopen.  Churches, synagogues, and America’s houses of worship have provided critical care, comfort, and calm in the midst of the uncertainty caused by a worldwide pandemic.  They should not be punished for their many kindnesses by a wave of lawsuits when this is all over. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Lawsuit Immunity for Houses of Worship and Nonprofits 

Judge Justin Walker sides with religious freedom when Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Easter is a special day on the Christian calendar.  But for On Fire Church in Louisville, Kentucky in the Spring of 2020, it would be more than special; it would be memorable. They intended to hold a drive-in Easter service, since the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from meeting in person. But, Mayor Greg Fischer forbade it.  Actually, the mayor said the police might attend too, but only to write down license plates and force atte­ndees into a 14-day quarantine.  First Liberty sought a temporary restraining order late on Good Friday.  Less than 24-hours later, Judge Justin Walker granted the TRO, explaining that the mayor’s actions were “violating the Free Exercise Clause ‘beyond all question.’”  He noted that “Louisville . . . targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services, while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-throughs—including . . . drive-through liquor stores.”  Concluding, “if beer is ‘essential,’ so is Easter.”  Judge Walker’s opinion recalled the experience of the Pilgrims who, he said, understood that, “No place, not even the unknown, is worse than any place whose state forbids the exercise of your sincerely held religious beliefs.” Even in times of worldwide pandemic, the First Amendment does not hand in a doctor’s note and take the day off.  Rather, it preserves and defends the first of our freedoms given to us by God himself. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Judge Justin Walker sides with religious freedom when Mayor Greg Fischer of Louisville, Kentucky targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services on Easter Sunday. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Easter is a special day on the Christian calendar.  But for On Fire Church in Louisville, Kentucky in the Spring of 2020, it would be more than special; it would be memorable. They intended to hold a drive-in Easter service, since the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from meeting in person. But, Mayor Greg Fischer forbade it.  Actually, the mayor said the police might attend too, but only to write down license plates and force atte­ndees into a 14-day quarantine.  First Liberty sought a temporary restraining order late on Good Friday.  Less than 24-hours later, Judge Justin Walker granted the TRO, explaining that the mayor’s actions were “violating the Free Exercise Clause ‘beyond all question.’”  He noted that “Louisville . . . targeted religious worship by prohibiting drive-in church services, while not prohibiting a multitude of other non-religious drive-ins and drive-throughs—including . . . drive-through liquor stores.”  Concluding, “if beer is ‘essential,’ so is Easter.”  Judge Walker’s opinion recalled the experience of the Pilgrims who, he said, understood that, “No place, not even the unknown, is worse than any place whose state forbids the exercise of your sincerely held religious beliefs.” Even in times of worldwide pandemic, the First Amendment does not hand in a doctor’s note and take the day off.  Rather, it preserves and defends the first of our freedoms given to us by God himself. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

The First Amendment Is Not On Hold During a Pandemic 

As large group gatherings have been placed on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pastor Charles Hamilton from Greenville, Mississippi, prepared to preach to his usual Sunday crowd via a drive-in church service. However, the Mayor suspended these gatherings and it took two lawsuits and an intervention for the discrimination to stop. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It was a warm spring Thursday evening in Greenville, Mississippi.  One would have said it was a perfectly normal evening for King James Bible Baptist Church to host a Bible study, but things were hardly normal. A highly communicable virus had infected the world.  Everyone was shut down, or so it seemed.  The town’s mayor had even cancelled all gatherings in the town, including religious gatherings. Still, Pastor Charles Hamilton made adjustments and readied himself to preach to a bunch of cars.  Well, he meant to preach to people, but they were confined to their cars.  That week, the mayor of Greenville had even prohibited so-called drive-in church services where parishioners drove to the church, parked in the lot, and stayed in their cars, listening through the closed doors and windows to hear Pastor Hamilton preach. It was a strange time.  Nonetheless, Pastor Charles Hamilton was shocked when he walked outside.  The entire police force was there, piling out of their cruisers.  One officer rushed to inform Pastor Hamilton that his rights had been “suspended.”  Pastor Hamilton thanked the officer, picked up his Bible, and continued to preach anyway.  We don’t know what the officers thought about the sermon that evening, but we do know this: it took two lawsuits and the intervention of the Attorney General of the United States to get Greenville’s mayor to stop discriminating against Pastor Hamilton.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

As large group gatherings have been placed on hold during the COVID-19 pandemic, Pastor Charles Hamilton from Greenville, Mississippi, prepared to preach to his usual Sunday crowd via a drive-in church service. However, the Mayor suspended these gatherings and it took two lawsuits and an intervention for the discrimination to stop. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. It was a warm spring Thursday evening in Greenville, Mississippi.  One would have said it was a perfectly normal evening for King James Bible Baptist Church to host a Bible study, but things were hardly normal. A highly communicable virus had infected the world.  Everyone was shut down, or so it seemed.  The town’s mayor had even cancelled all gatherings in the town, including religious gatherings. Still, Pastor Charles Hamilton made adjustments and readied himself to preach to a bunch of cars.  Well, he meant to preach to people, but they were confined to their cars.  That week, the mayor of Greenville had even prohibited so-called drive-in church services where parishioners drove to the church, parked in the lot, and stayed in their cars, listening through the closed doors and windows to hear Pastor Hamilton preach. It was a strange time.  Nonetheless, Pastor Charles Hamilton was shocked when he walked outside.  The entire police force was there, piling out of their cruisers.  One officer rushed to inform Pastor Hamilton that his rights had been “suspended.”  Pastor Hamilton thanked the officer, picked up his Bible, and continued to preach anyway.  We don’t know what the officers thought about the sermon that evening, but we do know this: it took two lawsuits and the intervention of the Attorney General of the United States to get Greenville’s mayor to stop discriminating against Pastor Hamilton.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Drive-In Church Services Under Fire 

Are the recent restrictions imposed by state officials in response to COVID-19 a violation of your religious freedom? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. A global pandemic has gripped the nation’s attention in the Spring of 2020 and rightly so.  In response, some state officials are imposing restrictions upon the gathering of large numbers of people in one place at a time.  Are such restrictions Constitutional? As my law professors used to say: it depends. Temporary, evenly applied restrictions on religious gatherings may be permissible.  Government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so.  But, even then, government must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that compelling interest. So, temporary restrictions to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is almost certainly a compelling reason, so long as the government is not treating religious institutions unfairly compared with how it treats other comparable gatherings. Those restrictions need to be applied evenly and temporarily.  For instance, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s famous threat to shut down synagogues who disobey his orders would almost certainly violate the constitution if he attempted to enforce it.  Likewise, Mayor Errick Simmons, of Greenville, Mississippi, was wrong and unfair to send the entire police force to surround our clients at King James Bible Baptist Church for having a drive-in church service, but leave the local drive-in hamburger joint alone. The Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  Even in times of a worldwide pandemic, it’s good to know religious liberty is protected. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Are the recent restrictions imposed by state officials in response to COVID-19 a violation of your religious freedom? Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. A global pandemic has gripped the nation’s attention in the Spring of 2020 and rightly so.  In response, some state officials are imposing restrictions upon the gathering of large numbers of people in one place at a time.  Are such restrictions Constitutional? As my law professors used to say: it depends. Temporary, evenly applied restrictions on religious gatherings may be permissible.  Government may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion unless it has a compelling reason for doing so.  But, even then, government must use the least burdensome approach that achieves that compelling interest. So, temporary restrictions to reduce the spread of a global pandemic is almost certainly a compelling reason, so long as the government is not treating religious institutions unfairly compared with how it treats other comparable gatherings. Those restrictions need to be applied evenly and temporarily.  For instance, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s famous threat to shut down synagogues who disobey his orders would almost certainly violate the constitution if he attempted to enforce it.  Likewise, Mayor Errick Simmons, of Greenville, Mississippi, was wrong and unfair to send the entire police force to surround our clients at King James Bible Baptist Church for having a drive-in church service, but leave the local drive-in hamburger joint alone. The Constitution knows no exception for a pandemic.  Even in times of a worldwide pandemic, it’s good to know religious liberty is protected. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org.</a>

COVID-19 and Religious Freedom

Despite doing her best to find a solution that would reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community, Justice of the Peace, Dianne Hensley is still under fire for not personally performing a same-sex marriage due to her religious beliefs. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Dianne Hensley is a Justice of the Peace in Waco, Texas.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, she has been looking for a way to reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community. She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she understands that many of her gay friends do not share that conviction. If she, like most of the local justices of the peace stopped officiating weddings altogether, those without ready access to low-cost alternatives suffer most. So, she assembled a referral list of wedding officiants, including a walk-in wedding chapel just 3 blocks from the courthouse.  That arrangement worked, until the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, without having received a complaint, initiated an investigation.  That resulted in an official “public warning” with likely worse sanctions to follow should she continue. Surely in 2020, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed. We’ve filed a lawsuit against the Commission, alleging their punishment violates Dianne’s religious liberty.  Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite doing her best to find a solution that would reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community, Justice of the Peace, Dianne Hensley is still under fire for not personally performing a same-sex marriage due to her religious beliefs. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Dianne Hensley is a Justice of the Peace in Waco, Texas.  Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage, she has been looking for a way to reconcile her religious beliefs while serving the needs of her community. She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she understands that many of her gay friends do not share that conviction. If she, like most of the local justices of the peace stopped officiating weddings altogether, those without ready access to low-cost alternatives suffer most. So, she assembled a referral list of wedding officiants, including a walk-in wedding chapel just 3 blocks from the courthouse.  That arrangement worked, until the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, without having received a complaint, initiated an investigation.  That resulted in an official “public warning” with likely worse sanctions to follow should she continue. Surely in 2020, we can find a way to protect those with religious beliefs that prevent them from officiating weddings with which they morally disagree, while also accommodating the marriage of anyone lawfully allowed to wed. We’ve filed a lawsuit against the Commission, alleging their punishment violates Dianne’s religious liberty.  Rather than punish her, the Commission ought to have recognized Dianne’s effort to balance her faith with the needs of her community — a type of basic, human, and much needed fairness missing in much of America today. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Justice of the Peace Who Found a Solution for All Is Still Under Fire

First Liberty Briefing is an exclusive podcast hosted by First Liberty Institute’s Deputy General Counsel Jeremy Dys.In about 90-seconds, once a week, Jeremy recalls the stories that have shaped America’s religious liberty, from the founding era to current legal battles and more. It’s an insider’s look at the stories, cases, people, and laws that have made America the world’s leader in protecting religious liberty.

Thanks!!!

You can learn a lot in 90 seconds! Fun facts and thought provoking. Leaves me wanting more!

Interesting & Time Effective

First Liberty Briefing is an exclusive podcast hosted by First Liberty Institute’s Deputy General Counsel Jeremy Dys. In about 90-seconds, once a week, Jeremy recalls the stories that have shaped America’s religious liberty, from the founding era to current legal battles and more. It’s an insider’s look at the stories, cases, people, and laws that have made America the world’s leader in protecting religious liberty.

First Liberty Briefing

A recent case out of Fresno regarding our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is proving that American heritage is trying to be resisted by vehement disputants. Learn what this issue entails at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. According to The Fresno Bee, the Fresno City Council is considering adding the national motto, “In God We Trust,” to the wall of the council chambers.  But, at least one local resident opposes the proposal.  In the mind of one atheist protestor, the delicate balance between church and state is upset entirely by the public display of these four words.  And, despite the fact that the atheist writes, “Atheists like me feel the idea of “God” has little meaning,” he encourages the local community to oppose a word which he believes has “little meaning.”  One wonders how a word with “little meaning” can violate the so-called separation of church and state, but that’s another issue. Of course, if folks wanted to purchase the article in The Fresno Bee, they would do so with coins bearing the national motto since 1864.  The city council would be in good company with the United States House of Representatives which has the motto emblazoned behind the speaker’s dais. And, on the way to city hall, residents may have to drive by police or sheriff’s cruisers sporting the national motto.  Throughout America’s history, the national motto has been honored and celebrated as an expression of what it means to be an American. Any effort to prevent its display should be rejected as bald efforts to rewrite our history and destroy our heritage. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

A recent case out of Fresno regarding our national motto, “In God We Trust,” is proving that American heritage is trying to be resisted by vehement disputants. Learn what this issue entails at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. According to The Fresno Bee, the Fresno City Council is considering adding the national motto, “In God We Trust,” to the wall of the council chambers.  But, at least one local resident opposes the proposal.  In the mind of one atheist protestor, the delicate balance between church and state is upset entirely by the public display of these four words.  And, despite the fact that the atheist writes, “Atheists like me feel the idea of “God” has little meaning,” he encourages the local community to oppose a word which he believes has “little meaning.”  One wonders how a word with “little meaning” can violate the so-called separation of church and state, but that’s another issue. Of course, if folks wanted to purchase the article in The Fresno Bee, they would do so with coins bearing the national motto since 1864.  The city council would be in good company with the United States House of Representatives which has the motto emblazoned behind the speaker’s dais. And, on the way to city hall, residents may have to drive by police or sheriff’s cruisers sporting the national motto.  Throughout America’s history, the national motto has been honored and celebrated as an expression of what it means to be an American. Any effort to prevent its display should be rejected as bald efforts to rewrite our history and destroy our heritage. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Does a Public Display of Our National Motto Violate the Separation of Church and State?

While elementary students in Knoxville, Tennessee, can legally opt for Bible study time during their school days, complaints have recently arisen regarding this practice. Critics should recall that The Supreme Court of the United States approved and even commended this tradition in Zorach v. Clauson. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Is it possible for public school students to go to a church or synagogue to receive religious education during the school day?  In fact, yes it is. Release time education is one such example.  Instruction provided by release time education is not and cannot be provided by the school, and no school support or participation of any kind is allowed—including transportation. No student is required to participate, and no student can participate without specific parental consent and it cannot be held on school property. In Tennessee, for example, students from Sterchi Elementary School are released during the school day to travel to the Church at Sterchi Hills.  There, some 70 students spend about an hour of time receiving a Bible lesson. Some will raise complaints about the religious instruction received during release time, but those are entirely unfounded. The Supreme Court of the United States approved the idea almost 70 years ago in a case called Zorach v. Clauson. The Justices recognized that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and went on to not only uphold release time programs as perfectly lawful, but further explained that “[w]hen the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it then follows the best of our traditions.”  So according to the Supreme Court, Bible release time is not merely lawful — it exemplifies what it means to be an American.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

While elementary students in Knoxville, Tennessee, can legally opt for Bible study time during their school days, complaints have recently arisen regarding this practice. Critics should recall that The Supreme Court of the United States approved and even commended this tradition in Zorach v. Clauson. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Is it possible for public school students to go to a church or synagogue to receive religious education during the school day?  In fact, yes it is. Release time education is one such example.  Instruction provided by release time education is not and cannot be provided by the school, and no school support or participation of any kind is allowed—including transportation. No student is required to participate, and no student can participate without specific parental consent and it cannot be held on school property. In Tennessee, for example, students from Sterchi Elementary School are released during the school day to travel to the Church at Sterchi Hills.  There, some 70 students spend about an hour of time receiving a Bible lesson. Some will raise complaints about the religious instruction received during release time, but those are entirely unfounded. The Supreme Court of the United States approved the idea almost 70 years ago in a case called Zorach v. Clauson. The Justices recognized that “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being” and went on to not only uphold release time programs as perfectly lawful, but further explained that “[w]hen the State encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it then follows the best of our traditions.”  So according to the Supreme Court, Bible release time is not merely lawful — it exemplifies what it means to be an American.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Religious Release Time under Attack at Tennessee Public School

Cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court hinging on the court’s definition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The justices’ potential altering of this definition would greatly injure the democratic process as well as the state of religious liberty in America. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The day after the Supreme Court of the United States opened the 2019-2020 term of the court, the Justices heard argument in three cases over what is meant by a single word in a federal statute. The cases involve two homosexual men and one transgendered woman terminated from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.  The federal statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of, among other things, a person’s sex. That’s the word up for debate.  Activists have labored since at least 1974 to update Title VII’s definition of sex to include any number of gender identities and sexual orientations, but Congress has declined to act. Part of the reason for that has to do with the very real fear expressed by religious conservatives at the potential loss of key religious liberty protections.  They fear becoming the next Aaron and Melissa Klein.  Cutting off that democratic debate—one that allows concerns for the protection of religious liberty to be accounted for—is unwise.  The question everyone should be asking is what does yet another decision on a significant cultural question by judges mean for our democratic republic?  Equality and nondiscrimination means very little in the hands of a democracy that can be altered by the stroke of the judicial pen. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Cases have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court hinging on the court’s definition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The justices’ potential altering of this definition would greatly injure the democratic process as well as the state of religious liberty in America. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. The day after the Supreme Court of the United States opened the 2019-2020 term of the court, the Justices heard argument in three cases over what is meant by a single word in a federal statute. The cases involve two homosexual men and one transgendered woman terminated from their jobs because of their sexual orientation.  The federal statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of, among other things, a person’s sex. That’s the word up for debate.  Activists have labored since at least 1974 to update Title VII’s definition of sex to include any number of gender identities and sexual orientations, but Congress has declined to act. Part of the reason for that has to do with the very real fear expressed by religious conservatives at the potential loss of key religious liberty protections.  They fear becoming the next Aaron and Melissa Klein.  Cutting off that democratic debate—one that allows concerns for the protection of religious liberty to be accounted for—is unwise.  The question everyone should be asking is what does yet another decision on a significant cultural question by judges mean for our democratic republic?  Equality and nondiscrimination means very little in the hands of a democracy that can be altered by the stroke of the judicial pen. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Democracy, Religious Freedom, and the Cost of Changing the Civil Rights Act’s Title VII Definitions

Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty.  You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses.  Learn how he’s challenging Americans to protect religious liberty at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently gave remarks to a group in New Jersey.  His 45-minute presentation proved to be quite sobering. Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty.  You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses.  In other opinions, he has warned of the impact the sexual revolution may inflict upon the religious liberty of Americans. In his latest remarks, however, Justice Alito told the audience, “You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  A wind is picking up that is hostile to those with traditional moral beliefs.” But, the good justice ended with a word of caution and challenge.  He said, “We are likely to see pitched battles in courts and Congress, state legislatures and town halls.  But the most important fight is for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. It is up to all of us to evangelize our fellow Americans about the issue of religious freedom.” That’s where you and I come in.  Freedom—and especially religious freedom—is not a given in human history.  It is something each generation must renew for itself.  Telling the story of religious liberty, and its blessings, to one another is part of our responsibility as Americans.  It’s also how we preserve liberty. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty.  You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses.  Learn how he’s challenging Americans to protect religious liberty at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito recently gave remarks to a group in New Jersey.  His 45-minute presentation proved to be quite sobering. Justice Alito is a proven defender of religious liberty.  You may recall he authored the court’s opinion in Hobby Lobby, protecting the religious consciences of family-owned businesses.  In other opinions, he has warned of the impact the sexual revolution may inflict upon the religious liberty of Americans. In his latest remarks, however, Justice Alito told the audience, “You don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.  A wind is picking up that is hostile to those with traditional moral beliefs.” But, the good justice ended with a word of caution and challenge.  He said, “We are likely to see pitched battles in courts and Congress, state legislatures and town halls.  But the most important fight is for the hearts and minds of our fellow Americans. It is up to all of us to evangelize our fellow Americans about the issue of religious freedom.” That’s where you and I come in.  Freedom—and especially religious freedom—is not a given in human history.  It is something each generation must renew for itself.  Telling the story of religious liberty, and its blessings, to one another is part of our responsibility as Americans.  It’s also how we preserve liberty. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Justice Alito Challenges Americans to Protect Religious Freedom

Jack Phillips’ case may be over but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a lasting impact through the case of ‘Sweetcakes by Melissa.” Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Jack Phillips’ long ordeal appears to be over.  But, as Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Jack’s case, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”  That includes First Liberty’s clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein. The State of Oregon shut down Aaron and Melissa Klein’s “Sweetcakes by Melissa,” penalizing them $135,000 for the simple act of declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Oregon rests all of its actions on a law that theoretically applies generally to everyone and, on its face, treats religious exercise neutrally.  That position is grounded in the 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Employment Division v. Smith.  The product of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority opinion in Employment Division has been roundly criticized through the years.  The danger of Employment Divisionis that it allows laws that doburden one of the key provisions of the First Amendment—namely, the free exercise of religion—to escape meaningful judicial review. Aaron and Melissa’s case provides the Court an opportunity to correct that. Jack Phillips’ case left American business owners wondering whether the government can prescribe what they believe and force them to confess accordingly.  The Constitution prohibits government officials, high or petty, from compelling small business owners to create a message contrary to their religious beliefs.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Jack Phillips’ case may be over but the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make a lasting impact through the case of ‘Sweetcakes by Melissa.” Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Jack Phillips’ long ordeal appears to be over.  But, as Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Jack’s case, “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”  That includes First Liberty’s clients, Aaron and Melissa Klein. The State of Oregon shut down Aaron and Melissa Klein’s “Sweetcakes by Melissa,” penalizing them $135,000 for the simple act of declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Oregon rests all of its actions on a law that theoretically applies generally to everyone and, on its face, treats religious exercise neutrally.  That position is grounded in the 1990 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court called Employment Division v. Smith.  The product of the late-Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority opinion in Employment Division has been roundly criticized through the years.  The danger of Employment Divisionis that it allows laws that doburden one of the key provisions of the First Amendment—namely, the free exercise of religion—to escape meaningful judicial review. Aaron and Melissa’s case provides the Court an opportunity to correct that. Jack Phillips’ case left American business owners wondering whether the government can prescribe what they believe and force them to confess accordingly.  The Constitution prohibits government officials, high or petty, from compelling small business owners to create a message contrary to their religious beliefs.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

An Opportunity to Correct Smith  

One litigant argues that the tax code creates the new religion of “taxism” in violation of the First Amendment.Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Ben Franklin reportedly said, “There is nothing certain in life except for death and taxes.”  Well, in a 548-page complaint, one man has targeted at least one of those certainties, and it’s not death.  Terry Lee Hinds contends that the United States Tax Code has violated the Constitution by establishing “taxism,” an institutionalized faith and religion.  Because the tax code has the effect of favoring and even promoting organized religions through tax breaks and other benefits, Mr. Hinds believes the tax code is in violation of the First Amendment. Well, I suppose this is the sort of case that law students are forced to grapple with, but actually have little effect in the real world.  Some may dream such a lawsuit is the silver bullet to bring down our ghoulish tax system. Alas, Mr. Hinds’ lawsuit will not free us from the taxman’s visit every April 15.  For one reason, taxpayers have a lot of hurdles to overcome just to bring the lawsuit. Mere allegations—even ones dressed up in the garb of a First Amendment challenge—that they do not like to pay taxes will not be sufficient. For now, Mr. Hinds and the rest of us will have to continue to pay our taxes and, most importantly, the religious charities and houses of worship that are exempt from them will continue to be exempt. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

One litigant argues that the tax code creates the new religion of “taxism” in violation of the First Amendment.Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.</a> Ben Franklin reportedly said, “There is nothing certain in life except for death and taxes.”  Well, in a 548-page complaint, one man has targeted at least one of those certainties, and it’s not death.  Terry Lee Hinds contends that the United States Tax Code has violated the Constitution by establishing “taxism,” an institutionalized faith and religion.  Because the tax code has the effect of favoring and even promoting organized religions through tax breaks and other benefits, Mr. Hinds believes the tax code is in violation of the First Amendment. Well, I suppose this is the sort of case that law students are forced to grapple with, but actually have little effect in the real world.  Some may dream such a lawsuit is the silver bullet to bring down our ghoulish tax system. Alas, Mr. Hinds’ lawsuit will not free us from the taxman’s visit every April 15.  For one reason, taxpayers have a lot of hurdles to overcome just to bring the lawsuit. Mere allegations—even ones dressed up in the garb of a First Amendment challenge—that they do not like to pay taxes will not be sufficient. For now, Mr. Hinds and the rest of us will have to continue to pay our taxes and, most importantly, the religious charities and houses of worship that are exempt from them will continue to be exempt. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Taxism Is Not a Religion, and We Still Have to Pay Taxes

Activists challenged Lehigh County in Pennsylvania for retaining a cross symbol among the various elements displayed in its county seal. Following the precedents set in The American Legion v. AHA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Lehigh County’s right to include the cross in its seal. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Activists who dislike the presence of anything religious in public can no longer safely assume that judges will order religious symbols hidden from public view.  In recent decades, progressives have turned to the courts to accomplish what ought to be done in the political arena. No less is that true than when it comes to religiously expressive symbols that appear in public. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA is correcting the faulty understanding of the First Amendment. In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, for instance, that county’s seal includes various elements symbolic of their community, including a cross.  That, activists say, establishes a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Mercifully, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed. Judge Thomas Hardiman explained that what matters is less how old a particular religious symbol is and more whether its use fits within our country’s longstanding traditions. He said, “The Lehigh County seal fits comfortably within a long tradition of State and municipal seals and flags throughout our Republic that include religious symbols or mottos which further confirms its constitutionality.” Rather than allow judges to force the removal, destruction, or censoring of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, The American Legion line of cases safeguards the history of our country, the text of our Constitution, and the simplicity of a self-governed local community. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Activists challenged Lehigh County in Pennsylvania for retaining a cross symbol among the various elements displayed in its county seal. Following the precedents set in The American Legion v. AHA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld Lehigh County’s right to include the cross in its seal. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Activists who dislike the presence of anything religious in public can no longer safely assume that judges will order religious symbols hidden from public view.  In recent decades, progressives have turned to the courts to accomplish what ought to be done in the political arena. No less is that true than when it comes to religiously expressive symbols that appear in public. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in The American Legion v. AHA is correcting the faulty understanding of the First Amendment. In Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, for instance, that county’s seal includes various elements symbolic of their community, including a cross.  That, activists say, establishes a religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.  Mercifully, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit disagreed. Judge Thomas Hardiman explained that what matters is less how old a particular religious symbol is and more whether its use fits within our country’s longstanding traditions. He said, “The Lehigh County seal fits comfortably within a long tradition of State and municipal seals and flags throughout our Republic that include religious symbols or mottos which further confirms its constitutionality.” Rather than allow judges to force the removal, destruction, or censoring of religiously expressive monuments, symbols, or practices, The American Legion line of cases safeguards the history of our country, the text of our Constitution, and the simplicity of a self-governed local community. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Lehigh County, Pennsylvania Allowed to Keep Cross Symbol in its County Seal

Bill Barr

In a recent speech, Attorney General Bill Barr emphasized religious liberty’s importance in our federal republic. Echoing the Founders, he maintained that religious liberty promotes individual self government and morality—needed virtues in American citizenry. Additionally, Barr explained why governmental neutrality depends upon religious liberty’s protection. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  Another Trump Administration official has come out in favor of religious liberty, this time with one of the best speeches on the topic in modern memory. Bill Barr serves the nation at Attorney General. In October of 2019, Barr delivered a speech to his law school alma mater, Notre Dame.  The entire speech is worth reading, but his primary point was to explain that the framers of our Constitution believed self-government was only as effective as the people were moral.  Without a common moral commitment to restrain them, people will turn to tyranny to have moral restraints forcefully applied or licentiousness brought about by the complete absence of morality.  The Constitution succeeded because its framers relied upon the ethics of Judeo-Christianity in drafting it. But, as Barr notes, the problem now is that “militant secularists” are engaged in “an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”  He says, “The problem is not that religion is being forced on others.  The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.” That’s what his critics fail to grasp.  To them, neutrality means government-enforced secularity.  But, the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it guards against hostility masquerading as secularized neutrality. America’s founding era is replete with efforts by the founding generation to preserve space for people of faith to exercise religion independent of the government’s preferences.  Such historic toleration is what is rightly called, “neutrality.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

In a recent speech, Attorney General Bill Barr emphasized religious liberty’s importance in our federal republic. Echoing the Founders, he maintained that religious liberty promotes individual self government and morality—needed virtues in American citizenry. Additionally, Barr explained why governmental neutrality depends upon religious liberty’s protection. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>.  Another Trump Administration official has come out in favor of religious liberty, this time with one of the best speeches on the topic in modern memory. Bill Barr serves the nation at Attorney General. In October of 2019, Barr delivered a speech to his law school alma mater, Notre Dame.  The entire speech is worth reading, but his primary point was to explain that the framers of our Constitution believed self-government was only as effective as the people were moral.  Without a common moral commitment to restrain them, people will turn to tyranny to have moral restraints forcefully applied or licentiousness brought about by the complete absence of morality.  The Constitution succeeded because its framers relied upon the ethics of Judeo-Christianity in drafting it. But, as Barr notes, the problem now is that “militant secularists” are engaged in “an unremitting assault on religion and traditional values.”  He says, “The problem is not that religion is being forced on others.  The problem is that irreligion and secular values are being forced on people of faith.” That’s what his critics fail to grasp.  To them, neutrality means government-enforced secularity.  But, the genius of the U.S. Constitution is that it guards against hostility masquerading as secularized neutrality. America’s founding era is replete with efforts by the founding generation to preserve space for people of faith to exercise religion independent of the government’s preferences.  Such historic toleration is what is rightly called, “neutrality.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Attorney General Bill Barr: Religious Liberty, Not Militant Secularism, Is the Key to Governmental Neutrality and a Moral, Self-Governing Citizenry

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden a citizen’s free expression of religion, but it does not provide protection for abuse, neglect, or other violent acts. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. A woman in Indiana has attempted to use that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify her abusive behavior, but it didn’t work. Kin Park Thaing was charged with neglect of a dependent and battery on a juvenile after allegedly disciplining her children by beating them with a hanger.  The beating was necessary, she argued to ensure her son would be right with God for his immoral actions.  Part of Thaing’s defense was rooted in the Indiana RFRA, suggesting that the state was substantially burdening her religious exercise by charging her with abuse and neglect for the way she chose to discipline her children.  Thankfully, RFRA does not sanction abuse, neglect, or other violent acts.  RFRA provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden the free exercise of religion, demanding that the state demonstrate a compelling justification for its actions.  There can be little that is more compelling than protecting against the abuse and neglect of children. In other words, RFRA worked.  The state was able to easily demonstrate why they were compelled to charge Thaing for her abusive behavior and Thaing pled guilty to battery.  The next time someone tries to convince you that RFRA laws can protect child abusers, remind them of Thaing’s story. Show them how effectively RFRA balanced both our commitment to religious liberty and the prevention of abuse. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden a citizen’s free expression of religion, but it does not provide protection for abuse, neglect, or other violent acts. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. A woman in Indiana has attempted to use that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify her abusive behavior, but it didn’t work. Kin Park Thaing was charged with neglect of a dependent and battery on a juvenile after allegedly disciplining her children by beating them with a hanger.  The beating was necessary, she argued to ensure her son would be right with God for his immoral actions.  Part of Thaing’s defense was rooted in the Indiana RFRA, suggesting that the state was substantially burdening her religious exercise by charging her with abuse and neglect for the way she chose to discipline her children.  Thankfully, RFRA does not sanction abuse, neglect, or other violent acts.  RFRA provides a check on government when its actions substantially burden the free exercise of religion, demanding that the state demonstrate a compelling justification for its actions.  There can be little that is more compelling than protecting against the abuse and neglect of children. In other words, RFRA worked.  The state was able to easily demonstrate why they were compelled to charge Thaing for her abusive behavior and Thaing pled guilty to battery.  The next time someone tries to convince you that RFRA laws can protect child abusers, remind them of Thaing’s story. Show them how effectively RFRA balanced both our commitment to religious liberty and the prevention of abuse. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

RFRA Works

No one likes a test, especially one based on one’s character or religious belief, and no one should be forced to pass a religious test for office. But does Article VI apply to the states? Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. No one likes a test.  At least not the kind that are unfair, meant as a pass/fail standard upon the character of a person. That is why the Framers of the United States Constitution included a prohibition on a religious test for office in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.  But, did that federal prohibition apply to the states? That is a question presented by Roy Torcaso to the Supreme Court of the United States. Torcaso, a professed atheist, wished to be a notary public in the State of Maryland, but could not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution.  Justice Hugo Black explained in Torcaso v. Watkins that the prohibition on religious tests for office in the U.S. Constitution was to be extended to state constitutions as well.  He wrote, “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’" That is similar to what James Madison wrote in Federalist 52, where he explains that “the door of this part of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” In other words, you don’t have to pass a religious test to qualify for public office in America. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

No one likes a test, especially one based on one’s character or religious belief, and no one should be forced to pass a religious test for office. But does Article VI apply to the states? Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. No one likes a test.  At least not the kind that are unfair, meant as a pass/fail standard upon the character of a person. That is why the Framers of the United States Constitution included a prohibition on a religious test for office in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.  But, did that federal prohibition apply to the states? That is a question presented by Roy Torcaso to the Supreme Court of the United States. Torcaso, a professed atheist, wished to be a notary public in the State of Maryland, but could not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution.  Justice Hugo Black explained in Torcaso v. Watkins that the prohibition on religious tests for office in the U.S. Constitution was to be extended to state constitutions as well.  He wrote, “neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’" That is similar to what James Madison wrote in Federalist 52, where he explains that “the door of this part of the Federal Government, is open to merit of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” In other words, you don’t have to pass a religious test to qualify for public office in America. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Does Article VI Apply to the States? 

Despite long standing amendments like the Blaine Amendment, religious organizations should be just as deserving of participating in public programs as anyone else. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. We have discussed the history of anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments on this program before.  If you recall, it was Senator James Blaine who, in the mid-1800’s, proposed language ultimately adopted within state constitutions that prevents government dollars flowing to religious institutions, even to this day. It’s a curious thing that, in 2020 two organizations, one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions, yet only the secular organization may qualify for participation in public programs. Government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion. In January of 2020, the Supreme Court once again heard arguments over the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments in Espinoza v. Montana.  In a friend of the court brief, First Liberty Institute argued that religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. The promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion, welcoming religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations. If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Despite long standing amendments like the Blaine Amendment, religious organizations should be just as deserving of participating in public programs as anyone else. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. We have discussed the history of anti-Catholic Blaine Amendments on this program before.  If you recall, it was Senator James Blaine who, in the mid-1800’s, proposed language ultimately adopted within state constitutions that prevents government dollars flowing to religious institutions, even to this day. It’s a curious thing that, in 2020 two organizations, one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions, yet only the secular organization may qualify for participation in public programs. Government officials need not rely upon the overall ability, educational or professional qualifications, financial stability, or facilities of a religious organization to decide whether it may participate. Rather, they may exclude religious organizations because they are religious organizations. Their religion may be the sole criterion for exclusion. In January of 2020, the Supreme Court once again heard arguments over the constitutionality of Blaine Amendments in Espinoza v. Montana.  In a friend of the court brief, First Liberty Institute argued that religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. The promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion, welcoming religious organizations to compete in the public square on equal footing with other organizations. If they are to be denied, let it be for legitimate reasons having not the whiff of religious discrimination. Government should never tolerate the codification of religious bigotry. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Espinoza v. Montana Will Determine the Future of the Blaine Amendments 

The landmark decision in The American Legion case protects war memorials from destruction all across the country. Americans no longer need to fear these religious symbols on government property. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Over the last five episodes, we have been winding our way through the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case The American Legion v. AHA.  Before we move on to other areas of religious liberty, let’s tie the whole thing together. It’s undeniable that The American Legionis a landmark decision.  The days of activist courts catering to the offense of those who would illegitimately weaponize the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to attack religious symbols on public land are over. Not only is the Peace Cross safe from destruction, so are the hundreds of war memorials honoring veterans across the country. Our Founders would’ve been appalled at attempts by activists to purge the landscape of religious symbols in our country. We are a religious people, living in a diverse society. None of us should be surprised at the presence of religious symbols interspersed with secular ones in the public square.  Quite simply, Americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or the national motto on government property. It is fitting that a memorial to the men who died in the “war to end all wars,” now ends the war to end all memorials with religious shapes or symbols.  Thanks to the efforts of The American Legion, and some good lawyering at First Liberty Institute, today we have more freedom than we did just a few weeks ago. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The landmark decision in The American Legion case protects war memorials from destruction all across the country. Americans no longer need to fear these religious symbols on government property. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Over the last five episodes, we have been winding our way through the Supreme Court’s decision in First Liberty’s case The American Legion v. AHA.  Before we move on to other areas of religious liberty, let’s tie the whole thing together. It’s undeniable that The American Legionis a landmark decision.  The days of activist courts catering to the offense of those who would illegitimately weaponize the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause to attack religious symbols on public land are over. Not only is the Peace Cross safe from destruction, so are the hundreds of war memorials honoring veterans across the country. Our Founders would’ve been appalled at attempts by activists to purge the landscape of religious symbols in our country. We are a religious people, living in a diverse society. None of us should be surprised at the presence of religious symbols interspersed with secular ones in the public square.  Quite simply, Americans need no longer fear reprisals against the display of the Ten Commandments, a Nativity scene, or the national motto on government property. It is fitting that a memorial to the men who died in the “war to end all wars,” now ends the war to end all memorials with religious shapes or symbols.  Thanks to the efforts of The American Legion, and some good lawyering at First Liberty Institute, today we have more freedom than we did just a few weeks ago. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

The American Legion Case is a Landmark Decision for Religious Symbols

The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty.  The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school. Learn more about what this means for students and school employees by listening to FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty.  The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school. Under the new law, schools are instructed to treat voluntary student religious expression in the same way as other viewpoints being expressed.  Students are given the backing of the state in their manner of religious dress. Groups of students are given the space to form student religious clubs and gather to pray, just like any other club.  School employees benefit under the law as well. The new law expressly states, “Employees may not be prevented from participating in religious activities on school grounds that are initiated by students at reasonable times prior to or after the school day.”  Finally, the law requires the Florida Department of Education to develop a model policy establishing a limited public forum at certain times for the voluntary expression of religious viewpoints by students and personnel. This provision, which is required to be adopted by each school district throughout the state, will undoubtedly provide direction for how to handle things like graduation speeches, school board meetings, and maybe even ahead of athletic contests. There’s nothing earth-shattering in this new law, but whenever a state takes the time to codify what the courts have determined the First Amendment requires, it’s a good thing for religious liberty. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty.  The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school. Learn more about what this means for students and school employees by listening to <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. The State of Florida has a new law on religious liberty.  The “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” codifies much of the case law protecting religious expression in public school. Under the new law, schools are instructed to treat voluntary student religious expression in the same way as other viewpoints being expressed.  Students are given the backing of the state in their manner of religious dress. Groups of students are given the space to form student religious clubs and gather to pray, just like any other club.  School employees benefit under the law as well. The new law expressly states, “Employees may not be prevented from participating in religious activities on school grounds that are initiated by students at reasonable times prior to or after the school day.”  Finally, the law requires the Florida Department of Education to develop a model policy establishing a limited public forum at certain times for the voluntary expression of religious viewpoints by students and personnel. This provision, which is required to be adopted by each school district throughout the state, will undoubtedly provide direction for how to handle things like graduation speeches, school board meetings, and maybe even ahead of athletic contests. There’s nothing earth-shattering in this new law, but whenever a state takes the time to codify what the courts have determined the First Amendment requires, it’s a good thing for religious liberty. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

New Religious Liberty Law in Florida Protects Students and School 

Whether it is in word or deed, senior members of President Trump’s administration are proving to be strong advocates of the importance of religious liberty. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Two public appearances by senior members of the Trump Administration show the Administration’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty.  And it’s more than just words. In answer to a question from a reporter, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out the administration’s foreign policy when it comes to religious freedom.  He said, “Because it’s at the heart of all the freedoms that every individual should have, right?” Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker spoke at length about the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the Heritage Foundation on Religious Freedom Day.  He explained, “RFRA promotes authentic tolerance—because RFRA makes a solemn promise to the people of this nation that we can find a place for them, regardless of who they are, and regardless of their beliefs.” Both of these agencies have backed those words up with action.  The Trump State Department hosted a “Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom” in 2018 and plans are underway for another in 2019.  The DOJ has issued guidance on religious liberty to all executive agencies, launched its “place to worship” initiative that protects houses of worship, and been active in litigating violations of religious liberty. Whether it involves matters of foreign policy or domestic relations, it is good to see an executive branch committed to defending religious liberty in both word and deed. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Whether it is in word or deed, senior members of President Trump’s administration are proving to be strong advocates of the importance of religious liberty. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Two public appearances by senior members of the Trump Administration show the Administration’s fundamental commitment to religious liberty.  And it’s more than just words. In answer to a question from a reporter, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pointed out the administration’s foreign policy when it comes to religious freedom.  He said, “Because it’s at the heart of all the freedoms that every individual should have, right?” Former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker spoke at length about the importance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act at the Heritage Foundation on Religious Freedom Day.  He explained, “RFRA promotes authentic tolerance—because RFRA makes a solemn promise to the people of this nation that we can find a place for them, regardless of who they are, and regardless of their beliefs.” Both of these agencies have backed those words up with action.  The Trump State Department hosted a “<a href="https://www.state.gov/j/drl/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom</a>” in 2018 and plans are underway for another in 2019.  The DOJ has issued guidance on religious liberty to all executive agencies, launched its “place to worship” initiative that protects houses of worship, and been active in litigating violations of religious liberty. Whether it involves matters of foreign policy or domestic relations, it is good to see an executive branch committed to defending religious liberty in both word and deed. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

The Trump Administration is Dedicated to Religious Liberty

Former NFL players, Steve Largent and Chad Hennings along with two Seattle high school coaches filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Coach Kennedy’s right to take a knee after games. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. You may be familiar with Coach Joe Kennedy, the high school football coach at Bremerton High School who was fired for taking a knee in silent prayer after the game. Recently, he received support from a few other football players and coaches. First, Steve Largent, a retired Seattle Seahawk and Hall of Famer, and Chad Hennings, three-time Super Bowl champion with the Cowboys, explain to the court how football coaches were a positive influence on their lives, contending that Bremerton’s actions restrict free speech and impair coaches’ ability to serve as role models and mentors to their students. Hall of famer or not, we should all seek to defend the right to free speech. It’s central to our American identity as a diverse, pluralistic society, where we foster the free exchange of ideas. Second, from two football coaches at Garfield High School in Seattle.  These coaches gained national media attention by joining their team in kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. In their friend-of-the-court brief, the coaches ask the court to affirm that the First Amendment protects the rights of public employees—including football coaches—to private expression. If the Constitution protects the right of a football coach to kneel to protest injustice, it certainly protects the right of Coach Kennedy to kneel in prayer. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Former NFL players, Steve Largent and Chad Hennings along with two Seattle high school coaches filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Coach Kennedy’s right to take a knee after games. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. You may be familiar with Coach Joe Kennedy, the high school football coach at Bremerton High School who was fired for taking a knee in silent prayer after the game. Recently, he received support from a few other football players and coaches. First, Steve Largent, a retired Seattle Seahawk and Hall of Famer, and Chad Hennings, three-time Super Bowl champion with the Cowboys, explain to the court how football coaches were a positive influence on their lives, contending that Bremerton’s actions restrict free speech and impair coaches’ ability to serve as role models and mentors to their students. Hall of famer or not, we should all seek to defend the right to free speech. It’s central to our American identity as a diverse, pluralistic society, where we foster the free exchange of ideas. Second, from two football coaches at Garfield High School in Seattle.  These coaches gained national media attention by joining their team in kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. In their friend-of-the-court brief, the coaches ask the court to affirm that the First Amendment protects the rights of public employees—including football coaches—to private expression. If the Constitution protects the right of a football coach to kneel to protest injustice, it certainly protects the right of Coach Kennedy to kneel in prayer. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

 NFL Players and High School Football Coaches Support Coach Kennedy

On Religious Freedom Day 2020, President Trump announced new initiatives that his administration is taking to preserve religious freedom in America. Learn more about these three key initiatives at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing.  On Religious Freedom Day 2020, we celebrated a major victory for the rights of students, teachers, coaches, public employees, and religious organizations who want to freely live out their faith in school, at work, and in ministry. Two of our clients, Coach Joe Kennedy and Hannah Allen, joined our president, Kelly Shackelford, in the Oval Office of the White House while President Trump announced new initiatives aimed at preserving religious freedom. First, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated guidelines on prayer and religious expression in public schools. The updated guidelines expand upon previous guidelines and will help students freely live out their faith, without as much interference by school officials.  No student should fear discrimination for simply expressing their faith while at school. Second, the White House announced that nine federal agencies proposed new administrative rules to ensure that religious organizations and their secular counterparts are treated equally by the federal government. Religious organizations deserve to be treated just like secular organizations. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidance requiring that the administration of federal grants is consistent with the 2017 Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran.  Religious organizations should never be disqualified from federal grants just because they are religious. These actions by the Trump administration are an important step in helping end religious discrimination, while ensuring people of faith will be treated equally when they seek to partner with federal or state governments to provide services to communities nationwide. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

On Religious Freedom Day 2020, President Trump announced new initiatives that his administration is taking to preserve religious freedom in America. Learn more about these three key initiatives at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>.  On Religious Freedom Day 2020, we celebrated a major victory for the rights of students, teachers, coaches, public employees, and religious organizations who want to freely live out their faith in school, at work, and in ministry. Two of our clients, Coach Joe Kennedy and Hannah Allen, joined our president, Kelly Shackelford, in the Oval Office of the White House while President Trump announced new initiatives aimed at preserving religious freedom. First, the U.S. Department of Education issued updated guidelines on prayer and religious expression in public schools. The updated guidelines expand upon previous guidelines and will help students freely live out their faith, without as much interference by school officials.  No student should fear discrimination for simply expressing their faith while at school. Second, the White House announced that nine federal agencies proposed new administrative rules to ensure that religious organizations and their secular counterparts are treated equally by the federal government. Religious organizations deserve to be treated just like secular organizations. Finally, the Office of Management and Budget issued new guidance requiring that the administration of federal grants is consistent with the 2017 Supreme Court case of Trinity Lutheran.  Religious organizations should never be disqualified from federal grants just because they are religious. These actions by the Trump administration are an important step in helping end religious discrimination, while ensuring people of faith will be treated equally when they seek to partner with federal or state governments to provide services to communities nationwide. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org.</a>

3 Ways the White House is Working to Preserve Religious Freedom

James Gillespie Blaine proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools.  Learn what Justice Clarence Thomas said about the amendment at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. James Gillespie Blaine had an interesting life. He served as Speaker of the House of Congress and in the United States Senate.  Twice he served as Secretary of State, holding the position under three separate presidents.  He even sought the presidency, losing to Grover Cleveland. Blaine’s most notorious legacy, however, is an amendment that bears his name.  Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Grant at the height of a national controversy over the nation’s public schools, and whether religion had any place within them.  In 1875, President Grant declared, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the Church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions.  Keep the Church and State forever separate.” Days later, Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools.  His amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their constitutions were amended instead.  Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions.  These amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do. That prejudice led Justice Thomas to write of Blaine Amendments in the 1999 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

James Gillespie Blaine proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools.  Learn what Justice Clarence Thomas said about the amendment at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. James Gillespie Blaine had an interesting life. He served as Speaker of the House of Congress and in the United States Senate.  Twice he served as Secretary of State, holding the position under three separate presidents.  He even sought the presidency, losing to Grover Cleveland. Blaine’s most notorious legacy, however, is an amendment that bears his name.  Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Grant at the height of a national controversy over the nation’s public schools, and whether religion had any place within them.  In 1875, President Grant declared, “Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the Church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions.  Keep the Church and State forever separate.” Days later, Blaine introduced a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would, prevent any government aid to “sectarian schools,” especially Catholic schools.  His amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their constitutions were amended instead.  Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions.  These amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do. That prejudice led Justice Thomas to write of Blaine Amendments in the 1999 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.” To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

How the Blaine Amendment Discriminates Against Religious Organizations

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious acts of protests outside of the Supreme Court? Learn how a U.S. District Court decided the case at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. Sometimes the substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise comes literally to the steps of the Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that preventing anti-war activists from demonstrating outside the Supreme Court violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The activists noted in their complaint that as a “post-denominational Christian” and “Unity Christian,” their religious beliefs compel protests against war.  They insist on living out their spirituality through prayer vigils and peace walks, sometimes on the Supreme Court’s steps.  Interestingly, the court never questioned the sincerity of their beliefs, no matter how odd they seem.  Nevertheless, the court determined that RFRA did not protect their religious acts of protest.  Why? Because the rule restricts “only one of a multitude of means by which Plaintiffs could engage in their religiously motivated activity.”  According to their own words, the steps of the Supreme Court are not the onlyplace in which to exercise their beliefs; it’s just one ofthe places they exercise their beliefs.  So, while the rules might burden their religious exercise, it’s not a substantial burden since there are many avenues left open to their religious exercise.  RFRA provides broad protection to those who seek to exercise their religion, even when they attempt to do so in public.This case reminds us that RFRA correctly balances that right against the legitimate needs of government to govern.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protect religious acts of protests outside of the Supreme Court? Learn how a U.S. District Court decided the case at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. Sometimes the substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise comes literally to the steps of the Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently dismissed a lawsuit alleging that preventing anti-war activists from demonstrating outside the Supreme Court violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  The activists noted in their complaint that as a “post-denominational Christian” and “Unity Christian,” their religious beliefs compel protests against war.  They insist on living out their spirituality through prayer vigils and peace walks, sometimes on the Supreme Court’s steps.  Interestingly, the court never questioned the sincerity of their beliefs, no matter how odd they seem.  Nevertheless, the court determined that RFRA did not protect their religious acts of protest.  Why? Because the rule restricts “only one of a multitude of means by which Plaintiffs could engage in their religiously motivated activity.”  According to their own words, the steps of the Supreme Court are not the onlyplace in which to exercise their beliefs; it’s just one ofthe places they exercise their beliefs.  So, while the rules might burden their religious exercise, it’s not a substantial burden since there are many avenues left open to their religious exercise.  RFRA provides broad protection to those who seek to exercise their religion, even when they attempt to do so in public.This case reminds us that RFRA correctly balances that right against the legitimate needs of government to govern.  To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org.</a>

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Religious Protests

New York Timesauthor, Linda Greenhouse reveals how much of the mainstream media really views the fight for the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Learn more at FirstLiberty.org/Briefing. It is always interesting to read how the mainstream media views things like the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesrecently authored a lengthy commentary.  Her conclusion?  That the folks trying to destroy the memorial are going to lose, but that’s about it for the good news.  According to Greenhouse, a growing faction of conservative Justices of the Supreme Court that are increasingly committed to interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as permitting the display of religious symbols on public property and the Free Exercise Clause as providing, in her words, “robust protection for believers.”  To Greenhouse, this is not good because, she says, “the heart and soul of a diverse country . . . is going in one direction while the Supreme Court . . . is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.” But, that is factually untrue.  For one thing, according to recent polling 80% of Americans agree that memorials using religious imagery to remember our war dead is perfectly reasonable.  Those are the real“heart and soul” of this country. Removing religious imagery from public display does not make us more diverse.  It sends a message contrary to the constitution’s promise that religion in American is to be respected in personal and public life. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit FirstLiberty.org.

New York Timesauthor, Linda Greenhouse reveals how much of the mainstream media really views the fight for the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Learn more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/podcast-briefing/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org/Briefing</a>. It is always interesting to read how the mainstream media views things like the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Timesrecently authored a lengthy commentary.  Her conclusion?  That the folks trying to destroy the memorial are going to lose, but that’s about it for the good news.  According to Greenhouse, a growing faction of conservative Justices of the Supreme Court that are increasingly committed to interpreting the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as permitting the display of religious symbols on public property and the Free Exercise Clause as providing, in her words, “robust protection for believers.”  To Greenhouse, this is not good because, she says, “the heart and soul of a diverse country . . . is going in one direction while the Supreme Court . . . is hurtling in the other, toward a destination fraught with uncertainty and danger.” But, that is factually untrue.  For one thing, according to recent polling 80% of Americans agree that memorials using religious imagery to remember our war dead is perfectly reasonable.  Those are the real“heart and soul” of this country. Removing religious imagery from public display does not make us more diverse.  It sends a message contrary to the constitution’s promise that religion in American is to be respected in personal and public life. To learn how First Liberty is protecting religious liberty for all Americans, visit <a href="https://firstliberty.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

How the Mainstream Media Sees Bladensburg

The best episodes for anyone looking to learn more about topics such as happiness, fulfillment, depression and psychology/mental health in general. With interviews with industry experts, personal stories of individuals, this topic has lessons applicable to everyone. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!

Best Episodes on Mental Health, Emotions & Thoughts

The best podcast episodes on physical health. Episodes talk about your diet, sleep, exercise and all the things that people do to improve their physical health and live a healthier life. This topic is for everyone, with applications in all of our everyday lives. Add episodes you're interested into your queue below!