Rarely do we see businesses, small or large, voluntarily abandon a tax credit. When those tax credits are used to help low-income and inner-city kids escape failing schools and find a pathway to success, it’s even more surprising.
Several days before President Donald Trump called on Congress during his State of the Union Address to pass legislation providing a million students with an opportunity scholarships, the Orlando Sentinel published a lengthy investigative <a href="https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/os-ne-voucher-schools-lgbtq-discriminate-20200123-s5ue4nvqybcgrbrxov5hcb46a4-htmlstory.html">article</a> detailing how corporations support these low-income families by way of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Pushing more of an ideological agenda than straight reporting, the Sentinel suggests that the use of these funds by many religious schools is meant to be “anti-gay.”
I went to one of the school (whose mascot, ironically, happens to share a name with the Sentinel) on the list. My parents sent me to Christian school because they believed no education was complete without a thorough understanding of the Bible. If you’ve never been to one of the schools on the list, let me tell you what you will find there.
First, you will see students from every corner of America represented: Black, white, Hispanic, rich, poor, middle income. As a fifth grader, when I started attending Evangelical Christian School in Fort Myers, Florida, it struck me as completely ordinary that my classmates looked pretty much the same as any room I ever entered in America. Selma, my friend of Indian-American descent, was just Selma. We played football together during recess and tried not to get in trouble during lunchtime.
My school was very disciplined, growing out of a religious conservative tradition that valued respect for elders and one another. We stood to answer questions when called upon. We did not talk during the lunch hour or in the hallways. We wore uniforms. Mrs. Dunn, the headmistress, was feared by all, but it was clear she cared for her students.
And there was chapel and prayer and Bible study. In fact, by the time I got to high school, we had an entire class period dedicated to Bible. It was insightful: We studied not only the Scriptures that formed the basis of our faith, but also learned to appreciate and respect the differences of our faith with that of others&#8217; faith.
Of course, we also studied math, science, literature, and the rest. Each class had a distinctive approach of not only mastering the subject at hand, but evaluating what our Christian worldview had to say about it. Before every baseball practice, Coach Kieffer would lead the team in a brief devotion drawn from the Bible and pray for us. I respected that man for his commitment to “the Man in the chair,” an empty chair meant to remind us that God is ever present, a help in time of need.
Florida’s tax scholarship program came about after I was out of school. Thanks to the Sentinel (the newspaper, not our mascot), I know that my alma mater receives scholarships through the Florida Tax Credit program to assist students to attend school. I believe there are families who have always wished to send their kids to a school that unashamedly teaches according to the Christian tradition but, for financial reasons, never could afford to do so.
But because of this newspaper article, fewer low-income families will have that choice. Wells Fargo, Wyndham Vacation Properties, Fifth Third Bank, and others <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/third-company-pulls-florida-voucher-donations-over-anti-gay-school-n1126686">pulled their funding</a>. (Fifth Third, perhaps realizing the error, <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/02/07/fifth-third-continue-funding-scholarships-anti-lbgtq-florida-schools/4691279002/">reversed that decision</a>). Activists are hard at work trying to convince Waste Management, and others, to do the same.
Rather than let inner-city kids or low-income families from the rural areas of Acadia and Belle Glade pursue private education that meets the needs of their children, they would cancel their scholarship to score “woke” points with the Left. It’s a shame.
In 2018-19, over 104,000 students received scholarships because of this program.  The typical <a href="https://www.stepupforstudents.org/research-and-reports/">student</a> receiving the scholarship lives at the poverty line (roughly $29,000), has only one parent in the home, and struggles academically. Sixty-eight percent of them are Africa-American or Hispanic.
Wells Fargo, Wyndham, and others are literally taking money away from poverty-stricken, minority children and the Left is praising them for doing so. Why? In their mind (and that of the Sentinel), it is less risky to a child’s future to live in poverty, with one parent in the home, and continue to struggle academically than attend a Christian school.
Such hostility toward religion should have no place in Florida, the news room, or a corner office. Businesses are welcome to forgo whatever tax credits they want. If they want to pay more in taxes, I suppose we cannot stop them. Still, they should understand that the price of appeasing the Sentinel and other ideologues is a low-income child’s future.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Human hand placed on the Bible, pray to God.

DYS: Pulling Scholarship Funds Punishes Low-Income Children

Bible

Christianity

Congress

Donald Trump

Florida

Homosexuality

Leftism

LGBTQ

Media Bias

Religion

The reach of the First Amendment is extensive in securing the religious liberty of individuals and organizations, including colleges and universities.
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in <a href="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2F28720A8D5A2275852584FD005931E0/$file/18-1063-1825902.pdf">Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit v. NLRB</a>. When Duquesne refused to bargain with a group of adjunct faculty seeking to unionize, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stepped in, recommending that the union be certified. But, in a decision authored by Judge Thomas B. Griffith, the D.C. Circuit rejected the NLRB’s jurisdiction over the Catholic university.
Duquesne distinguishes itself as “Catholic University in the Spiritan Tradition.” Its mission statement reads simply: “Duquesne serves God by serving students.” Like many religious colleges and universities, Duquesne’s commitment to its religious identity permeates throughout its entire campus. Adjunct faculty are a critical part of that mission.
Jude Griffith notes from the outset that our Constitution restrains government agencies from excessive involvement with religious organizations. “The Establishment Clause,” he writes, “limits governmental involvement in the affairs of religious groups, and the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the freedom to practice religion, whether as an individual or as part of a group.”
That is critical, he said, because it means religious institutions retain the independence required to pursue religious activity, inculcate its religious identity, and teach according to its religious tradition. Indeed, he notes, “For many Americans, religion cannot be exercised apart from religious organizations.” Thus, their institutions must be — and are — protected by the First Amendment. After all, the Constitution is meant to restrain government, not empower its creep into every aspect of our lives.
Nonetheless, the NLRB has been trying since the 1970s to assert its regulatory control over religious schools. Thankfully, the courts have thus far roundly rejected those efforts. In the seminal case, NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that it is teachers who hold a critical role in fulfilling the mission of a religious school — whether or not any individual teacher provides actual religious instruction.
Thus, the Court in Catholic Bishop observed that even minimal involvement by the NLRB in a church-operated school presents a “significant risk that the First Amendment will be infringed.”
That logic would later be extended to higher education through subsequent decisions, which led the D.C. Circuit to create what it labeled a “bright-line test” that exclusively determines whether the NLRB may impose its jurisdiction upon a religious institution. If a religious institution (a) holds itself out as religious to the public, (b) is a not-for-profit institution, and (c) is religiously affiliated, the NLRB has no jurisdiction. Period.
But, in Duquesne, the NLRB ignored that test, opting instead to create its own rule requiring an institution to prove that its faculty in question actually perform a religious function. This would demand that a religious institution essentially prove the sincerity and sufficiency of its religious convictions — and that of its faculty.
Judge Griffith rightly explains the danger of the NLRB’s unilateral rule: “Defining which [faculty] roles qualify would be far outside the competence of [NLRB] members and judges.”
The importance of this decision cannot be understated. Its immediate impact should be welcomed by religious colleges and universities around the country. Furthering the autonomy of religious institutions to be unapologetically religious and free from government intrusion is an unambiguous goal of the First Amendment.
In the 2000 decision of Mitchell v. Helms, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that a court’s inquiry into the sincerity of a citizen’s religious views is “not only unnecessary but also offensive.” Likewise, to permit a government agency to require Duquesne to subject itself to examination by an independent federal agency like the NLRB that demands the university prove the authenticity of their religious mission is unnecessary and offensive.
Yet something is missing in all of this. Where are those who advocate the strict separation of church and state? Ought they not to be first in line to agree that the NLRB — a government agency — has no business involving itself in governing the affairs of a religious institution? Or is their mythical wall of separation merely one-sided, to be opposed only when the religious wander into the public arena?
The Duquesne decision reminds us that government agencies — despite nearly four decades of decisions against them — will often attempt to arrogate to themselves greater, and more intrusive, authority over religious institutions. Thankfully, this federal court has rightly checked that bloat. In doing so, it has made the promise of the First Amendment all the more meaningful for religious institutions.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Close-Up Of Lady Justice Statue

DYS: The Nation’s Second-Highest Court Preserves Religious Liberty

Constitution

First Amendment

Judicial Branch

Judiciary

James Gillespie Blaine led an interesting life. He served as speaker of the House of Representatives 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 bearing his name.
Blaine got his idea from a fiery speech delivered by President Ulysses Grant at the height of a national controversy over whether religion had any place within the nation’s public schools. 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,” targeting Catholic schools in particular.
His federal amendment failed, but various states borrowed his proposal and their own constitutions were amended instead. Today, almost 40 states have a constitutional provision that prevents government aid to religious institutions. These state constitutional amendments have empowered states to legally discriminate against religious organizations when they perform the same work secular institutions do.
For years, activists have used Blaine Amendments to successfully exclude religious individuals and organizations from benefitting from public benefits. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote of Blaine Amendments in the 2000 decision of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/793/">Mitchell v. Helms</a>, “This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.”
But Blaine’s legacy still lives. Just a few years ago, in <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf">Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer</a>, many who hoped to attend the funeral of Blaine Amendments were disappointed when the Court stopped just short of killing Blaine. A frustrated Chief Justice John Roberts observed in the majority opinion that the Blaine Amendment at issue in Trinity Lutheran put the church to the choice of either operating as a church or “automatic and absolute exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which the [church] is otherwise fully qualified.”
How can that still stand in the year 2020? Place two organizations on equal footing — one of whom is charitably motivated because of its secularity and the other by its religious convictions. Yet only the secular organization qualifies for participation in public programs.
In fact, 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.
This week, the Supreme Court justices will have another crack at Blaine’s legacy. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue</a>, parents of young children challenge the state’s denial of the use of scholarship funds for their children to attend a religious school. The funds come from private donations for which individuals and/or organizations receive a tax credit. Montana contends this administrative act of government conceding taxes for charitable donations necessarily excludes the religious from participation.
First Liberty Institute, where I work, has experience with this. In fact, we have a good friend with more than a little personal experience. The state of Washington used its Blaine Amendment to deny Joshua Davey a promise scholarship that he intended to use to study for religious ministry at a religious college. His case went to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, where the court upheld Washington’s decision in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/540/712/">Locke v. Davey</a>.
But, Davey, inspired by the attorneys who helped him with his case, went to Harvard Law School instead and now has a thriving law practice in North Carolina. He partnered with First Liberty to draft a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-1195/116222/20190918134556011_18-1195%20Amicus%20Brief%20Forge.pdf">friend-of-the-court brief</a> in support of the Espinozas.
We argue on behalf of another client from Benton County, Washington, Forge Youth Mentoring. There, county officials ultimately decided not end their grant to Forge, which was among the only mentoring groups lending help to the troubled youth of their community. But that came only after First Liberty got involved. Otherwise, Blaine would have claimed yet another victim.
Religious organizations are as deserving of participation in public programs as anybody else. It was wrong for Blaine and his ilk to insist upon excluding Catholics from such participation in the 1800s. Insisting that we sanitize the public square of religious organizations merely begets a government intent on enforcing what Attorney General William Barr <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jeremy-dys-liberal-attack-on-barrs-religious-freedom-speech-shows-hes-right">might refer to as</a> “militant secularism.”
Rather, the promise of the First Amendment is — at the very least — that government will be neutral towards religion. This welcomes 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.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

SCOTUS

DYS: It’s Time To End The Bigotry Of Blaine Amendments

Clarence Thomas

Discrimination

Lawsuit

Supreme Court

Christianity Today, long a periodical interested in the state of Christianity in America and beyond, chose as its first <a href="https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/january-february/hidden-cost-of-tax-exemption.html?share=W8WCpAicWdgbfvWBIB1OuZu7JODENqc4">cover story</a> of the new year an article entitled, “The Hidden Cost of Tax Exemption.” Noted historian Paul Matzko makes a case for why American churches may be better off by refusing the “governmental largesse” of tax exemption.
In truth, however, rather than make churches more ideologically faithful, the loss of tax exemption for churches would invade upon church autonomy and curb religious liberty.
The article portrays America as populated by those who “view churches as basically parasitical.” Pastors live large off the largesse that comes from tax exemption, feeding on the benefits their churches drain from their host community without returning much, if any, noticeable benefit. Tax exemption is appealing, according to this cover story, because of a historical desire of churches to propagate racism, as well as to further discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
This of course comes, we read, through another temptation: Political power. Ever since President Lyndon Johnson, churches have been hellbent on unshackling themselves from the government’s control in order to maintain political dominance. In short, the article suggests that tax exemption has led to the American church abandoning the sanctifying effects of the Gospel for the enticing sins of greed, gluttony, racism, and bigotry.
Any hope that the article would temper its criticisms against the intangible good churches supply is quickly dashed because, we are told, the exemption “is not available in any way to the irreligious” and may instead be “a massive government subsidy for religion.” Ecclesiastical charitable acts could, after all, be covered by others because &#8220;the tax-exempt status of churches isn’t a requirement for people of faith to do good works.&#8221;
It is a dim, if not cynical, view of the American church. Whether churches in Sod, West Virginia caring for a community bedeviled by an opioid crisis or churches in Gas City, Indiana caring for struggling farmers feel they have access to “political power” or “cultural privilege,” either now or in the past, appears immaterial. Reading the article, one almost feels the need to cheer on churches to voluntarily relinquish tax exemption and assuage their moral culpability.
Tax exemption is no mere privilege bestowed by a beneficent government upon a lesser entity it controls. It is a recognition that churches — and all houses of worship — maintain an independent autonomy to pursue their duty to a higher authority than government. That is what the exemption recognizes.
As James Madison famously said in his &#8220;Memorial and Remonstrance&#8221; of 1785, &#8220;what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.&#8221; Government may not interfere with that duty of man toward his Creator, but is instituted among men to protect the exercise of that duty of man toward his Creator.
That is why it is illegal for the city of Houston, Texas to use its power of eminent domain to seize property owned by <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/fifthward/">African-American churches in the Fifth Ward</a> in order to move in businesses that can then become taxable engines to fill the coffers of city hall. It is also why the city of Holly Springs, Mississippi cannot limit access to its town square to those who look like the rest of the community, rather than the growing black congregation, <a href="https://firstliberty.org/cases/opulent-life-church/">Opulent Life Church</a>.
Yet, according to this cover story: “It might not be such a bad thing to lose tax-exempt status. We should consider at the very least, the cost of maintaining this kind of cultural privilege. The true church of God, after all, is not reliant on its special status in the tax code. We can walk by faith and not by government largesse.”
It must hurt the average pastor in America to read this article. Do we really think that the pastors of those churches in the Fifth Ward and Holly Springs are not members of the “true church of God” because they are exempt from taxation? Do churches — and other houses of worship — really maintain their grip on “cultural privilege” because they crave the government’s “largesse” more than religious fidelity?
The “true church of God” is less a target to be taxed or a parasite to be crushed and more a quiet blessing upon a world in need of the peace they preach and acts of service they humbly perform. A local gathering of religious believers should be viewed as a human right of religious association and free exercise worthy of protection, rather than a potential stream of revenue.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org/">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

tax sign over coins and dollar bills

DYS: In Defense Of Church Tax Exemptions

Christianity Today

Taxes

There has to be a way to honor someone’s religious beliefs and respect members of the LGBT community at the same time. <a href="https://firstliberty.org/hensley/">Judge Dianne Hensley</a> thought she struck that balance. Instead, she received an official reprimand from the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“Commission”).
Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, public officials who are authorized (but not required) to officiate wedding ceremonies have faced the same dilemma Dianne faced. Many, rather than risk compromising their religious convictions, simply stopped officiating all weddings. But some demand that justices of the peace like Dianne either officiate all marriages or find themselves disqualified from office altogether.
Dianne knew there had to be another way. What if she were able to reconcile her religious beliefs with serving the needs of her community?
She knows that her convictions prevent her from officiating gay weddings, but she also respectfully understands that many of her gay friends do not share that same conviction. If she, like most of the justices of the peace in McLennan County, Texas, stopped officiating weddings altogether, it is those without ready access to low-cost alternatives who suffer most.
Instead, she found a way to honor her religious convictions and make sure any gay couple who wanted to get married could get married without delay or additional cost. Her referral system worked brilliantly.
If, because of schedule or moral reasons, Dianne could not officiate a requested wedding, she referred them to those who could — including a nearby walk-in wedding chapel. As soon as the couple holding a marriage license could make the three-block walk to the walk-in wedding chapel, they could be married.
It would cost the same, too. In fact, Judge Hensley offered to pay from her own pocket the difference between her rate and that of the walk-in wedding chapel. But the walk-in wedding chapel simply agreed to reduce its rate, instead, for those referred by Judge Hensley’s office.
It worked well. Dianne’s religious convictions remained undisturbed and her referral efforts accounted for more low-cost gay weddings than perhaps any other public official in all of McLennan County. But then, without having received a complaint, the Commission launched an investigation. Rather than praise her proactive problem solving, they determined she had to be reprimanded.
Dianne received a “Public Warning” for trying to honor her religious beliefs while respecting members of the gay community. It’s understandable why many have strong feelings about gay marriage, but surely we should be able to agree that justices of the peace like Dianne Hensley should not have their careers ruined for following both the rules of their faith and the law alike.
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. At the very least, no state agency should be punishing Dianne for her reasonable effort to reconcile her religious beliefs while meeting the needs of her community.
In fact, in a lawsuit we at First Liberty Institute filed in defense of Dianne, we argue that the Commission’s disciplinary actions violate the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There’s no compelling justification for the commissioners to punish a justice of the peace who, rather than cease officiating weddings entirely, accommodated more low-cost same-sex marriages than perhaps anyone in her entire local area.
Judge Hensley also hopes to continue using her referral system, even though she’s not required to officiate weddings at all. More than that, justices of the peace and other elected officials with the ability to officiate weddings are watching, hoping for a way to honor the distinctiveness of their faith while also respecting those in the gay community who wish to be married.
Is the only option really more reprimands? More penalties? More fines? Why must it either be officiate no weddings, officiate all weddings, or be disqualified from office because of your religious convictions, when there is a reasonable way to respect everyone involved?
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.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

judge gavel

DYS: Religious Liberty Must Be Respected In The Era Of Same-Sex Marriage

Same-Sex Marriage

Texas

In the age of #MeToo and Harvey Weinstein, it is hard to conceive why any school district would think requiring teenage girls to meditate on a song normalizing sexting would be acceptable. Yet, that’s precisely what led to the abuse of Skylar Cason’s religious conscience at Steamboat Springs High School in Colorado.
The class is “Music Literature.” Ostensibly to test the boundaries of appropriateness, Skylar’s teacher passed out an infamous poem from the 1950s, “Howl” by Allen Ginsberg. The poem’s history is plagued with criticism and accusations of indecency and obscenity. Once the subject of an obscenity trial, a court at length determined that the book-length poem failed to meet the legal definition of obscenity. Many today still debate its place as one of the 20th century’s great works of literature.
The Steamboat Springs School District approved the use of the poem in class, but only by using a copy that left blanks where some of the most lewd, vulgar, and obscene terms appeared. These are no mere cuss words. Not even George Carlin would use these dirty words; much less so should a teacher say them in the presence of 16-year-old girls. Words like: “c*nt” and “c*ck” and phrases like “f**ked in the a**.” Much of the rest of the content left uncensored by the publisher involves graphic and violent sexual depictions of the most debased sort.
But Skylar&#8217;s teacher despised the book’s omissions. He told the class to listen as he read the poem aloud, then required his underage students to fill in the blanks with the missing terms. So, as he read, emphasizing each “c*ck” and “f*ck,” teenage girls scrawled the uncensored words — many for the first time having ever heard such words.
Making matters worse, neither Skylar nor her parents received any warning of what she was going to hear, read, and then be coerced to write. School policy permits the teaching of “controversial materials,” but only after receiving parental permission. Such a policy not only protects the teacher, but demonstrates respect for parents who are in charge of the education of their children while also ensuring that a student’s religious conscience is protected. Had they been warned, Skylar’s parents would’ve protected their daughter and asked for an alternative assignment.
They only discovered the situation when Skylar came down from her room after listening to a Spotify list her teacher had assembled for homework. She was to contrast “Howl” with the song, “Psst, Teenagers Take Off Your Clo” by Carseat Headrest. The song not only glorifies sexting, but ends with the singer declaring, “I got your soul now, I got your clothes,” reminiscent of the type of control through sexual dominance that wiped Harvey Weinstein out of Hollywood.
Skylar’s parents complained, but the school district has held its ground. It refused to remove the poem from the curriculum and imposed no disciplinary action upon the teacher. Only after <a href="https://firstliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SSSD-Cason-Letter-11-18-19-FNL-Redacted.pdf">First Liberty Institute sent the school a demand letter</a> and the news of the situation made international headlines did the district begin to admit that its teachers may not fully understand their policy.
Students should never feel shame and guilt as a part of an assignment at school, and teachers should never violate the religious conscience of their students in class assignments. Avoiding these feelings is the very reason this school district has a policy of involving parents in the discussion of controversial materials.
School districts around the country routinely take far too many liberties with students. Whether they claim sordid poetry like “Howl” serve an important pedagogical purpose or woke administrators involve graphic discussions of sexuality to appease politically motivated special interest groups, parents are often intentionally left in the dark. This not only offends the proper role of parents in the education of their children — the “liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children,” as the Supreme Court of the United States explained in Wisconsin v. Yoder — but it can also permanently scar students.
In their professional zeal, school officials leave behind a wake filled with young women like Skylar, shaken and disturbed by a 26-year-old male teacher erasing an innocence that he had no business removing. Worse, all the years of effort in instruction, prayer, and direction by Skylar’s parents to inform her religious conscience were permanently stained by the Steamboat Springs School District. For what? A lesson on “Music Literature.”
Let Skylar’s situation be a lesson to school officials (and parents) everywhere: Teachers and administrators have a responsibility to work with parents to make sure their instruction respects the values, religious liberty, and rights of conscience of their students.
 
Jeremy Dys (<a href="http://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="http://firstliberty.org/">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Steamboat Springs, Colorado

DYS: Public Schools Cannot Trample Over Students’ Religious Consciences

Children

Colorado

Education

Sexuality

Teenagers

It should come as no surprise to find religion mixed with sports in America. From Tim Tebow’s eye black to teams huddled in prayer at the 50-yard line after games, American athletes routinely exercise their religion — before, during, and after games. With these public displays comes needless, often intimidating complaints that are probably better ignored.
The latest complaint came just this week. A group known for making noisy, public complaints about religion in public life groused to the Cameron R-1 School District in Cameron, Missouri. In a letter bearing the rough semblance of a legal demand letter, the group makes several unsubstantiated claims upon the school’s superintendent. Ultimately, they demand an investigation and that he “take immediate action” to end any religious activity supposedly occurring in violation of the Constitution.
Surprisingly, when school districts receive letters like these, they too often take them seriously. Perhaps you would too if you didn’t know any better. After all, legal cases are cited, a lawyer signs it, and one assumes that a lawsuit could follow if what they say is actually true. But something always seems to be missing. An important something: A litigant.
Fundamentally, unless a lawyer, law firm, or legal organization identifies a plaintiff — a parent and/or student actually aggrieved by any of the alleged conduct attributable to the school district — the letter is meritless. It amounts to little more than a public gripe. In the age of web crawlers and Google Alerts, even the claim that a local resident may have complained about the situation should be suspect.
There are important reasons to ignore anonymous complaints. Federal courts were not established to serve roving bands of censors and scolds. Only those with legitimate, legal standing are permitted to challenge complained-of behavior. Phantom complaints should be ignored lest school officials be goaded into unlawful behavior that suppresses activity otherwise protected by the Constitution.
Earlier this year, in the context of monuments, memorials, and other public displays invoking religion, Justice Samuel Alito explained in The American Legion v. AHA that, “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
History is replete with regimes that aggressively destroy public religious symbols and monuments. Modern governments, to this day, continue to assert control over the public expression of religion by their citizens. As President Trump recently observed in front of the United Nations, religious persecution is more the rule worldwide than America’s exception in protecting our core, national value of religious liberty.
This truth led Justice Alito to conclude in The American Legion: “Militantly secular regimes have carried out such projects in the past, and for those with a knowledge of history, the image of monuments being taken down will be evocative, disturbing, and divisive.”
Similarly divisive, and equally evocative of repressive regimes throughout history, and to this day, would be a school district catering to the interests of an organization that “roams the land” seeking to coerce school officials into taking unnecessary action that could very well lurch into the realm of hostility toward religion.
Courts require justiciable issues in order to access justice. Justiciable issues are presented by human beings actually aggrieved — what lawyers call having proper “standing.” Disembodied complainants rarely meet the rigid demands of civil procedure.
Government officials that receive such letters should wait until a plaintiff is identified. Assuming any and all religious expression is unconstitutional and taking action to put a stop to it — based on little more than an anonymous complaint — may actually increase liability.
Religious liberty is a hallmark of our nation’s brand of freedom. The free exercise of religion, protected by the First Amendment, guarantees the rights of all citizens to exercise their faith. That freedom should not be casually limited by mere complaints from unidentified sources voiced by those who fund national television advertisements that mock religion.
If folks at the nation’s athletic events are offended by the presence of religion, they would do well to follow the advice of Judge James Clinkscales Hill, writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Chandler v. Siegelman, that they are “free not to listen, and to express their disagreement by not participating in any way.”
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

U.S. Supreme Court building

DYS: Roaming Complainers Should Be Ignored

When Francis Scott Key emerged from the hold of the HMS Minden the morning after the bombardment of Fort McHenry, he made an appropriate decision that would impact our history down to today. Seeing “Old Glory” wave atop the battle-tested fort moved him to pen what we know today as the “Star Spangled Banner.”
Since then, the National Anthem stirs our hearts with patriotism, signals the start to ball games, and moves grizzled veterans to tears. It’s also the source of our National Motto, something not everyone thinks is appropriate.
Key felt the weight of the historical moment. It was the War of 1812 — what some call our “Second War for Independence.” The fledgling nation that would become an international superpower faced off for the second time in fifty years against the superpower that would become its eventual ally in freedom. But all was not certain the night Key spent aboard the HMS Minden.
Seeing the “dawn’s early light” against what “so proudly we hailed at twilight’s last gleaming” must have produced confidence that this experiment in democracy might just work. Years later, the nation would grab an oft-forgotten line from the fourth verse of that hymn, adapting, and then adopting, it officially as our National Motto: “And this be our Motto: ‘In God is our trust.’”
Imagine how certain Key must’ve been to write those words? A young nation, having fought for its independence, weathered multiple Constitutional Conventions, and seen the election of at least three presidents, was divided and uncertain over a great many things, but united in the thought that the freedom to do right must be grounded in acknowledging trust in God.
It was wholly appropriate. King George had overstepped. His many “injuries and usurpations” painted an unflattering picture that King George’s government believed it possessed the rights and privileges of citizenship. Our Declaration said otherwise, locating the giver of our freedoms — our “certain unalienable rights” — in the hands of humanity’s Creator.
So it is appropriate for the nation to not only have “In God We Trust” as our motto, but to display it: On coins, bills, and buildings. The state of Georgia displays it on its state flag. Recently, several states have mandated the display of the mottos in the schools, perhaps sensing a need to remind the next generation of its enduring truth. The state of Florida officially adopted “In God We Trust” as the state’s motto.
It should be entirely unsurprising and, therefore, fully appropriate that a state official would cause the motto of both a state and country to be displayed on his department’s vehicles.
That is precisely the thinking of <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-sheriff-god-atheist-complain">Sheriff Wayne Ivey</a> of Brevard County, Florida. His cruisers now include the motto. He joins a growing number of law enforcement vehicles around the country proudly displaying Key’s adapted phrase.
But one group sent a letter to Sheriff Ivey attempting to bully him into reversing his decision. Why? Because the display of the national (and state) motto is, they said, “inappropriate.”
Appropriateness is all they could possibly cite in their vain attempt to question Ivey’s decision because both our history and the law is stacked against them. The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected every challenge to the National Motto sent its way, including one this past June. Every federal appellate court to have heard a challenge to the constitutionality of “In God We Trust” has agreed that the phrase is consistent with our longstanding history and tradition.
That history and tradition, Justice Samuel Alito wrote earlier this year in The American Legion v. AHA, “begun by the First Congress stands out as an example of respect and tolerance for differing views, an honest endeavor to achieve inclusivity and nondiscrimination, and a recognition of the important role that religion plays in the lives of many Americans.”
That seems to be what Francis Scott Key had in mind in Baltimore harbor. Rather than fight against such a history and tradition, perhaps those that find the motto to be “inappropriate” might follow the example of the First Congress in showing “respect and tolerance.”
That seems appropriate to me.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (@JeremyDys) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

American flag wood

DYS: Display Of National Motto More Appropriate Than Ever

Just days after Attorney General William Barr set off a firestorm among progressive elites for his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-america-is-better-off-for-having-bill-barr">remarkable comments</a> on the importance of morality to the preservation of freedom, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in a <a href="https://www.state.gov/being-a-christian-leader/">speech</a> that his own leadership is drawn from his Christian faith. Now some are calling for what every American ought to instinctively know is an unnecessary investigation by the inspector general of the United States.
Secretary Pompeo’s speech, delivered to the annual meeting of the American Association of Christian Counselors, made a clear distinction. The fourth in line to the presidency admitted to learning a great deal about leadership while at West Point, in his service in the Army and Congress, and as director of the CIA.  Yet Pompeo tailored his comments to focus on how his faith has also informed his leadership style.
He cited the wisdom found in the Book of Proverbs: “With the humble is wisdom.” Great leaders are humble, he noted, observing how critical such humility is to his work as America’s top diplomat. Looking to the New Testament Book of James, Secretary Pompeo made the point that how one speaks and deals with others says a lot about who one is as a leader. And he acknowledged our responsibility to be wise stewards “of whatever it is that we have been privileged to hold onto,” including the decisions we make in our areas of leadership.
Secretary Pompeo’s leadership — in disposition, dialogue, and decision-making — is informed by the Christian principles of humility, forgiveness, being slow to speak, and stewardship.
For this, Americans United for Separation of Church and State now <a href="https://www.au.org/sites/default/files/2019-10/AU%20Letter%20on%20Investigation%20of%20Sec.%20Pompeo%20%26%20Dept.%20of%20State%2010.18.19.pdf">demands</a> that the United States government officially investigate Secretary Pompeo and the department he leads. To them, Secretary Pompeo gave “a proselytizing religious speech,” thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. When the U.S. Department of State then promoted the speech online, Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends, it too broke the law.
Secretary Pompeo anticipated the pushback. As an anticipatory defense, he invoked President Abraham Lincoln’s famous admission: “I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go.” Had Americans United been established during his presidency, no doubt Lincoln would have received a similar complaint.
It may come as a surprise to some that presidents (and secretaries of state) often look to moral principles — their personal faith — in making leadership decisions.  When those leadership decisions align with calls for social justice and progressive calls for economic equality, the Left celebrates.
Yet, admit that a secretary of state relies upon his faith to be humbler, listen better, and make wiser decisions, and suddenly it crosses the line into a constitutionally dubious attempt to establish an official church of the United States.
The error in thinking by Secretary Pompeo’s critics is that anyone serving in government must relinquish or renounce his/her faith upon entering civil service. Americans United for Separation of Church and State believes that Secretary Pompeo must be converted from religion to secularism in order to be neutral in his office. The group erroneously equates neutrality with government-enforced secularism.
The missionary-like zeal with which these secularists act is damaging to freedom itself. What would they ask the inspector general to do in response to the secretary of state admitting in public that his leadership is informed by his Christian faith? Must he be removed from office? Should the United States fine him for referencing his faith in this speech? Must Secretary Pompeo spend a night and a day in the stocks under a sign declaring, “Thus always to religious civil servants?”
Civil servants are citizens, too. They are, and must be, free to rely upon their religious faith in their efforts and unafraid to admit that they do so. Such honesty contributes to the great diversity of our nation — including religious diversity.
The human right to religious freedom — a freedom, as Secretary Pompeo noted in his speech, denied to 80% of the world’s population — means more than the freedom to worship on Sunday and hum hymns in the recesses of one’s home. Rather, Americans of every walk of life — elected or not — are free to be known by their faith in both public and private life. More than that, they are free to rely upon that faith in their disposition, dialogue, and decisions.
Whether one’s leadership is informed by Jack Welch, Jim Collins, or Jesus Christ should be of little surprise to anyone — let alone cause for an official inquiry by the inspector general.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Mike Pompeo

DYS: Response To Pompeo Speech Reveals Anti-Christian Hostility

State Department

William Barr

At yet another CNN town hall event for Democratic Party presidential hopefuls, former Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX) once again peeled back the Democratic National Committee&#8217;s carefully crafted veneer of political centrism to reveal what the Left really thinks about bedrock American principles.
For weeks, O’Rourke has been touring the country to tell us all about his plan to take away America’s guns. Rather than embrace the importance of this Second Amendment freedom, O’Rourke continually doubles down, often invoking words you can’t say on television to emphasize his seriousness that, under his hypothetical administration, the American government will forcefully disarm its own citizens.
This has pushed some on the Left to turn their metaphorical guns on O’Rourke. These tepid rebukes of the erstwhile wunderkind who nearly toppled Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sound more like, “Hey, don’t tell everyone what we really think.”
Having staked his position on the Second Amendment Thursday night, Robert Francis O’Rourke turned his attention to the First Amendment. Sagging in the polls, O’Rourke stood opposite CNN’s Don Lemon as Lemon read from one of O’Rourke’s plans. All the longshot presidential hopefuls have a plan, it seems. And every plan is fine-tuned for a niche audience. This was a plan for the LGBTQ+ community.
Lemon noted that O’Rourke’s plan praised freedom of religion as a fundamental right, but one that “should not be used to discriminate.” With that setup, Lemon asked, “Do you think religious institutions, like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same-sex marriage?”
At this point, everyone in the audience knew what O’Rourke’s answer really was. But they also knew what he had to say if he was going to turn the corner after the primary to gain traction in a general election. True to himself, O’Rourke wasted no time in casting off the shackles of centrism. He told the world what the Left really believes.
“Yes,” O’Rourke says, “There can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break for any one or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.”
Perhaps O’Rourke came to that conclusion after a discussion with someone in a Buc-ee&#8217;s bathroom. Perhaps it is what he has always thought. Perhaps he tested the answer in focus groups and has plans to double down on his answer in the coming days on the campaign trail.
Whatever the reason, O’Rourke’s answer is revealing for its honesty. While the Obama administration prosecuted nuns over birth control, it at least spoke in platitudes about “freedom to worship.” Celibate nuns may have to pay for birth control, but at least they are afforded a modicum of freedom to practice the worshipful elements of their religion.
Not so for O’Rourke. If a religious entity — religious colleges, charities motivated by religion, and churches adhering to two millennia of doctrine — disagrees with O’Rourke, it forfeits its tax exemption.
That’s a far cry from former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s promise in Obergefell v. Hodges, which emphasized “that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost sincere conviction” their religious beliefs regarding human sexuality. Indeed, Kennedy promised that “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Yet under an O’Rourke administration, Kennedy’s promise is only fulfilled when organized religion pays its own freight. Thus, Catholic hospitals, Muslim charities, evangelical soup kitchens, and Orthodox Jewish synagogues might manage to continue their good deeds, but only at a taxable rate. They must hope that their former donors are motivated more by the mission than by the tax incentives that have fueled the billions of dollars of charity that Americans have spread around the globe through religious organizations — charity that has relieved the American government from having to address it on its own.
O’Rourke’s plan has the high hurdle of a body of case law that makes it illegal for the government to deprive citizens of a protected right based upon the viewpoint of the citizen — but that’s not his point. O&#8217;Rourke knows that. Everyone knows that. Just like everyone knows O’Rourke has no legitimate path to presidential victory.
Rather, O’Rourke’s purpose is to expand the borders of the increasingly far-left Democratic Party. If a “churches lose their tax exemption” O’Rourke plan is too much. Then Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) “use [of] the Department of Justice to go after schools” plan is made more palatable and a Warren “pass the Equality Act” plan is practically mainstream. And so the entire political machine lurches just a little further to the left — comfortably on the road to total government control.
O’Rourke will not win the presidency. But he is not supposed to. Laugh, if you must, about his trademark flapping arms and insatiable desire to address crowds while standing on tabletops, but take with deadly seriousness his ability to say what his party is increasingly thinking.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Beto O’Rourke CNN town hall

DYS: Beto O’Rourke’s ‘Liberty’ Is No Liberty At All

2020 Election

Beto O'Rourke

Democratic Party

Don Lemon

Gun Buybacks

Gun Control

While the justices heard arguments in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-justices-divided-on-federal-protections-for-lgbt-employees/">three cases</a> inside the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Americans waited anxiously outside to learn the fate of the republic.
Exaggeration? Perhaps. But if so, it is only because it has become so routine to expect the high court to “decide” consequential issues for us. But that is not actually the justices’ job. Theirs is to say what the law is — “emphatically,” says Marbury v. Madison — and not to make it themselves.
In the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court’s job is to “call balls and strikes” like a baseball umpire — and not to be “pitcher or catcher.”
But advocates for three individuals terminated from their jobs think otherwise. In their mind, federal employment law governing non-discrimination in employment — specifically, Title VII — needs to be updated. But the plaintiffs think the courts, and not the legislatures, should do the updating.
Interestingly, their argument suggests that nothing actually needs to be updated. When, in 1964, Title VII was enacted, they argue that the word “sex” would linguistically evolve to encompass its myriad meanings today. That is, they argue, “sex” clearly includes both gender identity and sexual orientation. All that is necessary, they say, is for the high court to recognize that “sex” and the accompanying concept of “sex stereotypes” includes all the many iterations of gender identity and sexual orientation.
That is strange because, since at least 1974, there have been repeated — and failed — efforts to add gender identity or sexual orientation protections in federal non-discrimination law, including Title VII. In fact, someone has introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in Congress every year since 1994. And every year it has failed. Every single year.
States, for their part, have a more mixed record. Some have expanded the definition of “sex” in their state employment code provisions. Some have not. In some cases, municipalities within a state conflict with one another. Some cities, trying to be more “progressive,” have adopted expanded non-discrimination ordinances — sometimes even in opposition with state law.
Even earlier this year, the so-called <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hammer-house-democrats-equality-act-both-josh-hammer">Equality Act</a> — an aggressive non-discrimination proposal — passed the House of Representatives but has thus far not been acted upon in the U.S. Senate.
Perhaps to some, the word “sex” in Title VII means something more than it meant in 1964. But if, after 45 years since the first legislative effort in 1974, no Congress has agreed, why should the nine lawyers on the high Court do what Congress has not done itself?
So it is no surprise that Justice Samuel Alito said to advocates before the Court, “Congress has been asked repeatedly in the years since 1964 to address this question.” And, if Congress has so declined to address the question — or simply failed to act upon it — why should the Court? After all, he says, “[If] the Court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, we will be acting exactly like a legislature.”
Courts should not act like legislatures. Theirs is a different article in the Constitution altogether. Justice Neil Gorsuch seems to agree, noting that the role of expanding the law is the domain of the legislature. Thus, he said on Tuesday that this is “a question of judicial modesty.”
Beyond judicial modesty, if litigation since Obergefell v. Hodges has taught us anything, it is that short-circuiting the democratic process, as Justice Clarence Thomas warned us in his Obergefell dissent, has “potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty” (among other deleterious effects).
Justice Alito agreed, explaining at the time that Obergefell would “be used to vilify” those who disagree and that Obergefell may even be “exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
Even since Obergefell wound its way to the Court, Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Baronelle Stutzman, and others have emerged from the “recesses of their homes” — where Justice Alito said they might “whisper their thoughts” — and assumed the risk of acting upon their faith in public. Sadly, they were “labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”
Now, like Jack Phillips, they face years of litigation simply to clear their name. No American should face that fate. Respecting the democratic process that allows for give and take — for concession and compromise — gains for us an overall better result for freedom. Allowing Americans to use the First Amendment to question the speech of others in order to sharpen our societal understanding of freedom is a blessing rarely afforded to human history.
Judges should say what the law is. If the law is inadequate, they should not fill in the blanks left by Congress. To do so would give, as U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said at oral argument on Tuesday, “a complete victory to one side of the fight and nothing to the other side.”
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

police officer outside SCOTUS

DYS: The Role Of The Judiciary Is To Say What The Law Is, Not What It Should Be

Everyone has been moved by the remarkable story of forgiveness and mercy of <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/jury-deciding-sentence-police-officer-amber-guyger-wrong/story?id=66002182">Brandt Jean</a>, brother of Botham Jean — who was tragically killed last year by a Dallas police officer in his own apartment. A day later, it is impossible to scroll through any social media platform today and miss Brandt’s statement and the hug heard round the world.
Many have also taken note of <a href="https://youtu.be/y_qpdyAuLu4?t=125">Judge Tammy Kemp’s actions</a>. Not only did the presiding judge allow the transformational hug to occur; when sentencing was complete, Judge Kemp descended from the bench, grabbed her personal Bible, and presented it to the newly sentenced felon, Amber Guyger.
Sadly, not everyone sees the beauty of yesterday’s moment of reconciliation. Ignoring the example of humanity, healing, and mercy demonstrated by Brandt Jean and Judge Kemp, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) stepped in to ruin the moment, dividing with complaints rather than uniting with understanding.
This afternoon, the foundation of atheists, secularists, and “free-thinkers” filed a complaint with the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct (CJC). The CJC hears ethical concerns of the state’s judiciary: justices of the peace, judges, and justices. This isn’t the first time the Foundation has complained to the CJC.
The Foundation now <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/10/03/us/ap-us-dallas-officer-mistaken-apartment-judge.html">accuses</a> Judge Tammy Kemp of judicial misconduct for handing Guyger her personal Bible. They <a href="https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/35774-amber-guyger-judge-s-proselytization-an-abuse-of-power-ffrf-charges">accuse</a> the judge — clearly moved by the example of mercy and kindness shown by the brother of the man slain by Guyger — of “abuse of power” and of using the “privilege of [her office] to preach [her] personal religious beliefs.”
Their complaint to the CJC demands that the commission “investigate these actions and educate Kemp on her obligation to remain neutral on matters of religion to prevent future misconduct.”
We at <a href="http://firstliberty.org/">First Liberty Institute</a> would be only too pleased to represent Judge Kemp, should she require a legal defense. Judge Kemp should be permitted to be human, including the parts of her humanity informed by her religious beliefs. Indeed, any judge that hands any holy writ to anyone in an effort to encourage the improvement of his or her life is worth legally defending.
Earlier today, my boss, Hiram Sasser, <a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Judge-Kemps-Hug-Not-Embraced-by-All-After-Guygers-Trial-562089651.html">said</a>: “FFRF is protesting Judge Kemp rather than joining the rest of the nation celebrating the compassion and mercy Judge Kemp demonstrated. We should all be thankful the law allows Judge Kemp’s actions and we stand with her and will gladly lead the charge in defending her noble and legal actions.”
I can only add that what Brandt Jean and Judge Kemp have done for the community in demonstrating forgiveness, mercy, and grace has done more to restore hope, healing, and humanity for Dallas — and, let’s be honest, civility for the nation at-large — than any life sentence could have brought.
And, if you’re wondering about whether by the technical point of the law, the Foundation may have a point — please don’t. Our country has a longstanding tradition of understanding that our leaders have a professional, official role and yet may also retain their personal humanity. History is replete with examples of judges balancing their official duties, yet their faith also informing all aspects of their lives After <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf">The American Legion v. AHA</a>, such longstanding, religiously expressive activities ought to be presumed constitutional.
This is not the first attack on the personal faith of public officials — not even this week. Earlier this week, the Foundation intimidated a sheriff from Alabama from taking part in a candlelight vigil over the increase of crime that is devastating his community. They recently forced a school district in Missouri to stop a team chaplain from praying with his football players after the game.
If the Foundation had its druthers, it would have the kind of government Justice Alito warned against in The American Legion: “A government that roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion.”
Likewise, the Foundation would condemn, prosecute, and drive from office compassionate humans like Judge Tammy Kemp. Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution rejects demands that government commissions become, as Justice Alito wrote, “evocative, disturbing, and divisive” toward the religious beliefs of anyone — including judges.
Judge Kemp, if you’re reading this, thank you for being human. And call us if we can help.
&nbsp;
Jeremy Dys (<a href="https://twitter.com/jeremydys?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">@JeremyDys</a>) is Special Counsel for Litigation and Communications for First Liberty Institute, a non-profit law firm dedicated to defending religious freedom for all Americans. Read more at <a href="https://firstliberty.org">FirstLiberty.org</a>.

Menu

Jeremy Dys