separation of church and state » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘separation of church and state’
March 17, 2016 2

Tennessee Legislation Supports Church-State Separation in Public Schools

Tennessee’s state leg­is­la­ture is not known for mov­ing for­ward leg­is­la­tion strength­en­ing the wall sep­a­rat­ing church and state.  But ear­lier this week that is pre­cisely what it did by pass­ing a bill that man­dates con­sti­tu­tional safe­guards in teach­ing about reli­gion in pub­lic schools.

In recent years, the state leg­is­la­ture has enacted mul­ti­ple bills that pro­mote major­ity reli­gious views and under­mine the sep­a­ra­tion prin­ci­ple: a bill des­ig­nat­ing the Holy Bible as the offi­cial state book; back­door school prayer leg­is­la­tion; a mea­sure requir­ing post-secondary schools to sup­port stu­dent clubs that exclude mem­bers based on reli­gion; and a so-called “Aca­d­e­mic Free­dom Act,” which opens the door to teach­ing intel­li­gent design – a form of cre­ation­ism – in the pub­lic schools.

Flag_of_the_General_Assembly_of_Tennessee.svg

Based on this his­tory, the pas­sage of House Bill 1905, “An act rel­a­tive to … the inclu­sion of reli­gion in instruc­tion and cur­ricu­lum,” at first glance seems incon­sis­tent and sur­pris­ing.  The impe­tus for the bill, how­ever, mit­i­gates that incon­sis­tency.  It was filed in response to claims that a mid­dle school social stud­ies cur­ricu­lum crossed the con­sti­tu­tional line between teach­ing about and indoc­tri­nat­ing Islam.  No sim­i­lar claims were made about the course’s cov­er­age of other faiths includ­ing, Chris­tian­ity, Bud­dhism, Judaism, Con­fu­cian­ism, Dao­ism, and African religions.

Despite the ques­tion­able moti­va­tion behind the bill, on paper it is ben­e­fi­cial.  It cod­i­fies long­stand­ing con­sti­tu­tional stan­dards  by stat­ing that “[t]he inclu­sion of reli­gion in text­books, instruc­tional mate­ri­als, cur­ricu­lum, or aca­d­e­mic stan­dards shall be for edu­ca­tional pur­poses only and shall not be used to pro­mote or estab­lish any reli­gion or reli­gious belief.”  Most sig­nif­i­cantly, it requires “[t]eacher train­ing insti­tu­tions” to pro­vide can­di­dates with instruc­tion and strate­gies on how to teach about reli­gion in a con­sti­tu­tion­ally per­mis­si­ble manner.

Our nation’s pub­lic schools are for all chil­dren regard­less of their faith.  In the­ory, HB 1905’s safe­guards should make Ten­nessee pub­lic schools more wel­com­ing and inclu­sive.  How­ever, in light of the state legislature’s his­tory and the rea­sons behind this bill, ADL has con­cerns that its pro­tec­tions will only be applied in teach­ing about minor­ity faiths.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2014 Off

HHS Issues Overly-Broad Draft Rule Following Hobby Lobby

The U.S. Supreme Court’s deeply-troubling deci­sion in Bur­well v. Hobby Lobby allows cer­tain for-profit, cor­po­ra­tions to opt out of the Afford­able Care Act’s (ACA) con­tra­cep­tion man­date based on reli­gious objec­tions.  In in an effort to com­ply with the deci­sion, the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (“HHS”) issued a new pro­posed rule defin­ing orga­ni­za­tions and cor­po­ra­tions eli­gi­ble for reli­gious accom­mo­da­tion sim­i­lar to those already avail­able to reli­gious non­prof­its.  ADL firmly believes that the pro­posed rule is too broad and recently sub­mit­ted com­ments urg­ing a more nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of eli­gi­ble organizations.  hs-issues-overly-broad-draft-hobby-lobby

The ACA requires employer-provided health insur­ance to include cov­er­age for the full range of Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA)-approved con­tra­cep­tives and health ser­vices. Rec­og­niz­ing that con­tra­cep­tion impli­cates reli­gious beliefs, HHS exempted houses of wor­ship and other pervasively-religious employ­ers from the con­tra­cep­tion man­date.  It also accom­mo­dated religiously-affiliated non­prof­its (includ­ing schools and hos­pi­tals) by cre­at­ing a mech­a­nism through which employ­ees’ con­tra­cep­tives are made avail­able by third-party insur­ers with­out cost-sharing by the employer or the indi­vid­u­als access­ing these services.

Notwith­stand­ing these extra­or­di­nary accom­mo­da­tion efforts, own­ers of sec­u­lar, for-profit cor­po­ra­tions have filled dozens of law­suits under the First Amend­ment and Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (RFRA) assert­ing reli­gious objec­tions to the con­tra­cep­tion man­date.  These cases cul­mi­nated in the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby deci­sion.  ADL joined an ami­cus (friend-of-the-court) brief to the Court in the case argu­ing that the con­nec­tion between an employee’s pri­vate deci­sion to uti­lize con­tra­cep­tives made avail­able under the ACA is so far removed from an employer (likely entirely unknown), it could not pos­si­bly meet the RFRA stan­dard of impos­ing a “sub­stan­tial bur­den” on the reli­gious prac­tices of the cor­po­ra­tions’ owners.

How­ever, the Supreme Court’s dis­turb­ing deci­sion ruled that RFRA empow­ers cer­tain pri­vate, closely-held cor­po­ra­tions to impose their reli­gious beliefs on employ­ees by refus­ing to include con­tra­cep­tive cov­er­age in their employee health insur­ance plans.  Fol­low­ing this deci­sion, HHS issued its pro­posed new rule for closely held, for-profit cor­po­ra­tions – and asked for com­ments on how to define eli­gi­bil­ity for this accommodation.

ADL firmly believes that every woman should have access to the full range of FDA-approved con­tra­cep­tives, with­out addi­tional costs.  Our com­ments on the pro­posed rule argue that a nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of eli­gi­ble orga­ni­za­tions is nec­es­sary in order to limit the num­ber of sec­u­lar, for-profit own­ers who could impose their reli­gious beliefs on their employ­ees – and to limit over­all lit­i­ga­tion.  We also urged that closely-held cor­po­ra­tions seek­ing to opt out of the con­tra­cep­tion man­date be required to demon­strate that their reli­gious objec­tions are guided by sincerely-held reli­gious beliefs doc­u­mented in cor­po­rate char­ters, busi­ness prac­tices, poli­cies, and operations.

A final rule is expected in the next few months.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

October 3, 2014 Off

Sectarian Legislative Prayer – Walking In The Religious Minority’s Shoes

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent leg­isla­tive prayer deci­sion (Greece v. Gal­loway) gen­er­ally sanc­tions sec­tar­ian prayers before meet­ings of local leg­isla­tive bod­ies except for the most egre­gious cir­cum­stances.  In oppos­ing the Court’s deci­sion, Jus­tice Elana Kagan astutely con­cluded that “[w]hen the cit­i­zens of this coun­try approach their gov­ern­ment, they do so only as Amer­i­cans, not as mem­bers of one faith or another.  And that means that even in a partly leg­isla­tive body, they should not con­front government-sponsored wor­ship that divides them along reli­gious lines.”  At a recent county com­mis­sion meet­ing, a local com­mis­sioner may have expe­ri­enced the les­son of Jus­tice Kagan’s admonition.seal-of-escambia-county

The Escam­bia County, FL Com­mis­sion allows sec­tar­ian invo­ca­tions at its pub­lic meet­ings by a com­mu­nity mem­ber of any faith or reli­gion.  At the Sep­tem­ber 25th Com­mis­sion meet­ing, David Suhor, who is Pagan, recited a pagan prayer song “call­ing of the direc­tions north, east, south and west.”  Regard­ing his prayer, Mr. Suhor later stated “[i]n a way I would like for other peo­ple to expe­ri­ence what it’s like when I go to a meet­ing and am asked to pray against my conscience.”

Mr. Suhor’s prayer appar­ently offended at least one per­son in the room. Accord­ing to a news report, County Com­mis­sioner Wil­son Robert­son, “left the room because of his Chris­t­ian beliefs,” and he stated “[p]eople may not real­ize it, but when we invite some­one a min­is­ter to pray they are pray­ing for the county com­mis­sion­ers for us to make wise deci­sions and I’m just not going to have a pagan or satanic min­is­ter pray for me.”

ADL opposes sec­tar­ian leg­isla­tive prayer prac­tices because of the reli­gious exclu­sion and divi­sion result­ing from them – par­tic­u­larly for reli­gious minori­ties.  If the com­mis­sioner does not want a com­mu­nity mem­ber to pray for him in a faith that offends his con­science, per­haps he and other com­mis­sion mem­bers should adopt a moment of silence pol­icy or at least a non-sectarian invo­ca­tion policy.

Tags: , , , , , , ,