FEMA Funding for Churches?

On September 8, 2017, President Donald Trump tweeted,

Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others).

President Trump was referencing the FEMA policy that prohibited private nonprofit houses of worship from receiving disaster relief funding, specifically from applying for FEMA Public Assistance Grants. These grants are used primarily for repairing damaged non-profit facilities following a natural disaster.

Less than four months after the President's tweet and ensuing lawsuits from churches and synagogues in both Florida and Texas, an amended FEMA manual was released at the beginning of January 2018. Alex Amparo, the FEMA Recovery Directorate Assistant Administrator (or FEMARCDAA for short), stated, "Private nonprofit houses of worship will not be singled out for disfavored treatment within the community centers subcategory of nonprofit applicants." Under this new policy religious institutions can potentially qualify as "community centers" which are in turn eligible for disaster grants. The policy also retroactively covers buildings which were previously ineligible and were damaged during Hurricanes Harvey.

The policy change was precipitated by Trinity Lutheran Church of Colombia v. Comer. The Supreme Court case, decided in June of 2017, revolved around a Missouri church which was denied state funds to resurface its non-profit preschool's playground. The court ruled that the exclusion of a church from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause. A FEMA official stated,

In light of the Trinity Lutheran decision, FEMA has considered its guidance on private nonprofit facility eligibility and determined that it will revise its interpretation of the aforementioned statutory and regulatory authorities so as not to exclude houses of worship from eligibility for FEMA aid on the basis of the religious character or primarily religious use of the facility.

Organizations like the American Center for Law and Justice are treating this as a significant victory in the name of Religious liberty. The ACLJ described the FEMA previous policy as discriminatory and argues that churches serve as an important place of refuge during natural disasters, providing basic necessities to those affected in their communities. The attorney for churches and synagogues suing over the previous FEMA policy stated,

By finally following the Constitution, FEMA is getting rid of second-class status for churches, which in the words of the Supreme Court was 'odious' to the First Amendment. We will watch carefully to make sure that FEMA’s new policy implemented to provide equal treatment for churches and synagogues alongside other charities.

The ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued the contrary. Together these organizations in an amicus brief wrote,

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from granting public funds for the support of religious uses, including for the construction or repair of buildings used for religious worship. The grants sought by the plaintiffs here would support repairs to church sanctuaries and other core religious facilities, and are thus plainly proscribed by the Establishment Clause.

I question whether the Trinity Lutheran Church of Colombia v. Comer decision does in fact necessitate a change in the FEMA policy. The issue hinges on the application of funding. In the Colombia v. Comer case funding is being used for the sole purpose of resurfacing a preschool's playground which does not serve a religious function therefore no question of establishment of religion. In contrast, FEMA relief funding would be granted to repair church facilities which would in turn be used by that institution with the primary function of religious events and ceremonies, therefore an establishment of religion. In the terms of the free exercise clause, however, an reasonable argument can be made that the FEMA aid, like the Colombia v. Comer program, is neutral and secular and the exclusion of a church would be a breach of the free exercise clause. It is unclear to me in this scenario whether a breach of the establishment clause holds more weight than a breach of the free exercise clause leaving me conflicted in my opinion.

Sources: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/03/churches-disaster-funds-fema-religion-establishment-321202

The Disaster (Aid) Artist

During the period of August seventeenth to September third, hurricane Harvey ravaged the American south.  Without prejudice, the storm damaged buildings and infrastructure leaving a trail of destruction in its path.  Homes, schools, and churches were left devastated, many in a state of disrepair.

The storm eventually passed and then began a period of rebuilding.  Disaster aid from both private and governmental groups was given to help reconstruct many of the damaged buildings.  Much of the aid was distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, better known as FEMA.

Overall, thousands of organizations applied for aid.  Among them were three Texas churches.  Nothing out of the ordinary, right?

Here’s where it gets interesting: much to the dismay of the three churches, FEMA as a policy, made religious buildings ineligible for post-disaster aid. 

The plight of the Texas churches was short-lived, however.  Once President Trump was informed of the rule, he put an end to the policy, allowing the churches to receive federal aid through FEMA. This act was applauded by many who believe that houses of worship should receive the same type of federal aid as any other affected building.  In addition, many believe that not giving aid to the churches would violate the first amendment free exercise clause.

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, on the other hand, believe that repealing the policy shows a “clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and its protection of the separation of church and state” citing the establishment clause of the first amendment.  Other critics state that FEMA has limited funds, which should be spent repairing buildings which serve the entire community.  This point is bolstered by the fact that FEMA oftentimes withholds aid from facilities that promote vocational training, community-wide athletics, and political education.

Personally, I believe that the separation of church and state is crucial to the very fabric of American democracy and see the value in the federal government staying neutral towards religion or the lack thereof.  That being said, a clear distinction must be made between “neutral” and “secular.”

           

In reference to the state and religion, secularism means that the state doesn’t support any religious entity and instead focuses on just the secular needs of its people.  This is a mentality held by countries like France.  In France, for example, it’s largely illegal to wear outward symbols of religion, such as crosses, in public schools.  As one of my high school French teachers most eloquently put it, “in France, we have freedom ‘from’ religion instead of freedom ‘of’ religion.” 

Things are done a bit differently in America.  Instead of secularism, neutrality (arguably) is the mentality held by our government.  This means for example, that students in a public school are allowed to wear a cross necklace or hijab without protest, as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else.

In this case I chose to evaluate the issue through the lens of the aforementioned neutrality.  Was FEMA truly being neutral by making religious buildings ineligible for aid?  I think not.

As the hurricane didn’t tiptoe around the churches, destroying everything else, every affected building should have the ability to receive federal aid for damages, regardless of religious affiliation.  It is one thing to argue that other buildings such as schools or community centers should receive aid first, but that shouldn’t mean that religious buildings be completely barred from the discussion.

 These claims should be reviewed as a case by case basis.  If it’s between an elementary school and a church, repair the school.  If in a different storm, a church and a monument dedicated to Nickelback are damaged, maybe go for the church.  The church may not serve everyone in the community but it most definitely serves more people than the Nickelback statue.

 A similar conclusion was reached this past June when the supreme court reviewed a case in which the state of Missouri refused to give taxpayer grants to Trinity Lutheran, a private, religious elementary school.  The Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that the school should not be excluded from public grants towards the construction of new playground equipment.  In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts states that “By denying a benefit to a church school because of its avowedly religious character, the state is penalizing the free exercise of religions guaranteed by the Constitution.”

In the same light, withholding aid to the Texas churches would in a sense be penalizing the churches for being churches.  An organizations ability to receive FEMA benefits shouldn’t have to do with what they do or don’t believe in.

Creationism in the Classroom

A new house bill in Alabama, House Bill 258, was introduced on January 18, 2018 by legislator (R) Steve Hurst, a representative from the 35th house district in Alabama, and has come under scrutiny due to accusations that the bill goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.  If enacted, this bill would allow public school teachers to bring the theory of creation, also known as creationism, into the classroom alongside the theory of evolution.  The theory of creationism is, “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution”(Merriam Webster).

This bill states that in classes where the theory of evolution is taught, “any teacher may include as a portion of instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible.”  The idea of bringing creationism into the classrooms of public schools is certainly not a new one, but past attempts have worked to disguise creationism by calling it “Intelligent Design” or simply as an explanation for the weaknesses of evolution.  Language like this has been used in an attempt to separate religion from legislation.  In the bill, proposed by Steve Hurst however, no attempt was made to mask the religious ideologies being pushed.  In fact, the bill even states that teachers, “may read passages in the Bible as deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation.”

While the bill does state that the teacher, “may not stress any particular denominational religious belief,” this bill is still intended to advance a particular religion by giving fundamentalist Christianity a place in the Alabama public school system.  This is not the first time that Steve Hurst has attempted to pass legislation that arguably goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; he previously proposed a requirement that public school teachers read a daily prayer in their classrooms.

Alabama House Bill 258 is modeled after a Kentucky law, Kentucky Revised Statutes 158.177, which allows creationism to be taught in K-12 public school classrooms in Kentucky.  This law was first enacted in 1976 and was then repealed and reenacted in 1990.  Currently, it is still in place despite allegations that it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  

In 1987, after the Kentucky law was first enacted, there was a supreme court case, Edwards v. Aguillard which addressed the teaching of creationism in public schools in Louisiana.  The court eventually ruled that mandating that creationism be taught in Louisiana public schools was a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically designed to advance a particular religion.  The supreme court case also stated that, this law lacked a valid secular purpose, and was therefore declared unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment.  

In all three of these cases, the stated purpose of the act was to protect the academic freedom of students.  However, requiring, or allowing, religious theory such as creationism to be taught in public classrooms alongside evolutionary science is, in my opinion, a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; therefore, House Bill 258 in Alabama should not be enacted. The teaching of creationism as a valid alternative to evolutionary science in Catholic schools or even secular private schools should be the decision of the school, but Christian religious theory has no place in the science classrooms of public schools in America.  The Establishment Clause states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Allowing Bible theory of creation to be taught in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in that the government is favoring one religion over another in their legislation.  Creationism, as is stated in its definition and in the wording of the act itself, is a fundamentally Christian theory, and an act allowing for it to be taught in public classrooms favors Christianity over other religions. The part of the act stating that the teacher decides whether or not to teach creationism and read sections of the Bible in his or her classroom allows teachers to push their personal religious views on their students which actually limits the academic freedom of the students rather than protecting it.  While I would argue that would not be unconstitutional to learn about creationism as a Christian theory in a class dedicated to learning about different religions, teaching creation theory in a science classroom despite the theory’s lack of scientific support, does violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Can Cake Discriminate?

On December 5th, 2017 the Supreme Court considered who is right in a case between a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips who refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding and the same-sex couple that was turned down by Phillips.

The case began all the way back in 2012 when Phillips claimed that baking a cake for the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig would be in violation of his religious freedom. Resulting in Mullins and Craig filing discrimination charges and winning before a civil rights commission as well as in the courts.

There is a decision on the case expected to be presented in June. On December 5th, however, several justices intended to challenge the thinking of lawyers on either side. Appointee of President Trump Justice Neil Gorsuch speculated that by favoring the side of Mr. Phillips, we could be opening the door for more discrimination. At the other end, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, advocated the First Amendment. To Francisco, the constitutional amendment should guarantee businesses the ability to reject any customer wanting their product and/or services for “an expressive event like a marriage celebration to which they’re deeply opposed.” I think that both sides bring up valid points. But where do we draw the line when the expression of religion through our first amendment right is seen as a discrimination against the lives of others?

Phillips has been pushing that both his freedom of expression and freedom of religion, under the First Amendment, override the Colorado anti-discrimination law. There is not an explicit federal law that protects gay couples from discrimination, but hundreds of local districts and more than twenty states have outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation. Although, businesses such as florists, bakers, and photographers have cited religious and free-speech objections in refusing to serve gay and lesbian customers, claims that have generally not fared well in the nation's courts.

Although I do not agree with Mr. Phillips’ decision to refuse the same-sex couple, I am asking the question of whether Phillips' cake is a product to sell or his own creative venture. If his cake was a product on the shelf, with its creativity and expression completed, Jack Phillips would be in the wrong for denying a same-sex couple a product. But as Phillips' lawyer puts it: "Jack is an artist, and his cakes proclaim that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated. The government can no more force Phillips to speak those messages with his lips than to express them through his art." One has to ask whether or not the baking and decorating of a cake is equivalent to that of the artistic expression in painting a picture. In addition, doesn't Jack Phillips, under the First Amendment, have the right to, through art or other routes, only express his religious beliefs? And not the beliefs of others?

On the other hand, there is this notion that someone such as an Atheist restaurant owner could not turn away a Catholic customer. For this would be a violation of the Catholic person’s First Amendment right to expression of religion. So is this equivalent to Mr. Phillips violating an anti-discrimination law? Sexual orientation is not explicitly in the first amendment, but is it equivalent to religious beliefs and/or the freedom of speech?

The last questions I have to leave with are how powerful are our constitutional rights? Is the freedom of religion right powerful enough to override a state anti-discrimination law?

In God We Trust

You've seen it on the United States coin, paper currency, or maybe even inscribed on the wall of the Capitol Building, the four little words: "In God We Trust."  Now, you may even see it in Florida public schools.

Last Tuesday, a Florida State House PreK-12 Innovation Subcommittee collectively backed House Bill 839, requiring each public school district board to conspicuously display the state motto.

"In God We Trust" was first adopted as part of the state seal in 1868, the US national motto in 1956, and officially designated Florida State motto in 2006.  Now, Democratic Rep. Kimberly Daniels advocates that the bill shall serve as a powerful exemplar to Florida's youth about the national and state motto.  According to Daniels, the primary sponsor, in a time where God is seemingly forsaken, this bill would be a crucial lesson not only about the civic history of the state, but a dynamic reminder of everyone's right to religious freedom.

Supporters of the bill claim that the display is in no way an establishment of religion; rather, a positive motto given the current political climate.  The intentions of the bill are to serve as a platform for Florida's children to understand their states' roots and to enrich their scope of the nation's history.  According to Daniels, "The motto is inscribed on the wall of this great Capitol...It should be displayed so that our children will be exposed and educated on this great motto which is a part of this country's foundation."  Worthy to note is that this would apply to all public schools.  It only makes sense that public schools, of which receive public state funding, should honor and promote Florida State motto and flag.

Moreover, the bill received unanimous support across secular lines.

While I do coincide with the importance of teaching and understanding American history, I can't help but question the intentions of this bill.  Specifically, Daniels is a pastor who founded Spoken Word Ministries, Kimberly Daniels Ministries International, and Word Bible College, all of which promote a Christian faith.  She also spearheaded the "religious expression in public schools" legislation that was signed into Florida State law last year.

Which brings me to the crossroad: does House Bill 839, which requires Florida public schools to display the state motto "In God We Trust," violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

I believe that yes, House Bill 839 does indeed violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  By alleging "In God We Trust," we are inherently implying that there is an established god.  Moreover, this bill promotes a heavily proclaimed Christian belief.  Rather than establishing an Allah or a Brahman, these four words point-blankly validate the Christian God.

Additionally, the supporters of this bill also expressed their disappointment in the lack of spirituality seen nowadays. According to Rep. Larry Lee Jr., "We look at what has happened to a lot of our young people today...We're taking God out of everything. This country was built on God."  Yet, if a country could be built on a god, wouldn't that automatically assume the god's legitimacy and authority?  Thus, that would unquestionably violate the First Amendment by establishing a religion.   I regard that this bill would ultimately serve as a sphere of influence to promote their religious beliefs.

Moreover, upon my research, I also found that all members of the House PreK-12 Innovation Subcommittee affiliate with a religion in which a God is established; be it Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist.  This, I believe, further exemplifies some sort of majority bias within the committee, and has great potential to sway the vote.

House Bill 839 is intended for Florida's youth.  It is during these formative years that they ought to have the freedom to choose and enjoy their religious rights as American citizens, not be persuaded by lawmakers to have faith and believe in a certain way.  Requiring all public schools, of which the majority already have the state flag prominently on display, could set the stage for havoc within the sub-school districts, as well as on the national scale.  Rather than for the celebrating the civic history of the United States, I believe this bill was intended for religious purposes rather than secular ones.

Concerned Mother Sues Chatham School District

Libby Hilsenrath, the mother of a middle school child, has filed a lawsuit against the Chatham School District in Chatham, New Jersey, claiming that the School District’s ‘World Cultures and Geography’ Social Studies curriculum violated her son’s First Amendment constitutional rights specified by the Establishment Clause. The plaintiff argues that the 7^th grade Social Studies course, particularly the unit titled Middle East and North Africa (MENA) promoted Islamic ideas over Christianity and Judaism. The plaintiff, through this legal action, seeks to prove that her son’s United States constitutional rights were violated and to prevent the Defendants from any further acts or practices similar to those that allegedly violated the Establishment Clause. She also seeks from the State nominal damages and covered litigation costs.

The events leading to this legal action took place in Chatham Middle School during the 2016-2017 academic school year. All 7^th graders at Chatham Middle School are required to take World Cultures and Geography in order to pass on to the 8^th grade. In January of 2017, the MENA unit began to educate students about the history of these regions as well as the religion of Islam, which is predominantly practiced in the areas. Each student at Chatham Middle School has access to Google Classroom, where he or she must fulfill homework assignments posted on the webpage outside of school. Hilsenrath was reviewing her child’s Google Classroom and saw the Geography assignment instructing students to watch an “Intro to Islam Video”, which goes forth in claiming that “Allah is the one God” and quotes the Quran stating it “is a perfect Guide for humanity” and “an eloquent guide from Allah” and finally ends with the statement “May God help us find the true faith, Islam. Ameen.” This video could be interpreted as an example of religious propaganda. In additional the Defendants posted a cartoon video describing the 5 pillars of Islam in a kid-friendly connotation. The mother was concerned that the videos were an attempt to promote conversion to Islam over other religions and thus violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by favoring one particular religion.

By analyzing this case, I aim to answer the broad question as to whether or not one 5-minute online video promoting Islam and another describing Islam through cartoon in a Geography class defies one’s First Amendment right under the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”, which defends the idea that one religion cannot be considered the religion of the Nation. It also rejects any favorability or demanded participation by the government, and its institutions, towards one religion or non-religion over another. I argue that the video shown to students was not an infringement on the rights of the students, as the Chatham School District was not coercing the students to pray or practice the religion in any specific form. One could argue that the context of the video as propaganda could be educational without being a forced religious ideal. Finally, these two videos are part of a unit or a sub-segment of the entire course curriculum that covers all religions throughout the year in equal time allocated lectures, and therefore does not favor one religion over another.

In the historically critical case Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court ruling created the “Lemon test” in order to evaluate future cases and determine whether one’s rights under the Establishment Clause have been infringed upon. The test states that for an action to be considered within one’s rights under the Establishment Clause the “government's action must have a secular legislative purpose, the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.” Ruling against the Plaintiff would be Constitutional because showing a five minute video in the scheme of an entire year long course is secular, considering the other main religions of the world are taught in other units of the same course. The proportionality of this one video compared to an entire curriculum proves that a promotional video was not a ‘primary’ goal of the course. The effect of ruling against the Plaintiff will not promote Islam over any other religious or non-religious beliefs, and will thus not overstep any government power over religious freedom. I think it would be wise for the Defendants to make their entire course curriculum evidence since they have argued that an equal study of various religions takes place at this school.

 Because the school is teaching religion from an educational and historical standpoint, by not forcing anyone to join a particular religion or participate in a religion, the school is not favoring one religion over another and is thus not advancing or inhibiting religion. The fact that different religions may be studied through different videos either, explanatory or examples of propaganda that assist in the understanding of the cultural context of a particular religion, could be a persuasive argument for secular purpose, so long as the teachers are not forcing the students to believe what the religious promotional media are proclaiming. By ruling in favor of the Chatham School District the government is not entangling religious freedoms with its power, due to the lack of evidence that this School District is actively coercing prayer, conversion, religious exercise, and the like.

As a student who has taken World Geography and has studied various religions, I assert that it is possible to learn about how a religion is promoted without directly being encouraged to join a religion. By understanding the world, history, and the importance that religion has on particular groups of people, we gain a better understanding about our own culture and goals. Common fundamental educational curricula in our secondary school districts include the study and impact of propaganda in historical situations without condoning the behavior.  Most notably are the common study of NAZI Germany anti-Semitic propaganda used during WWII and the study of anti-Communism propaganda that proliferated during the McCarthy error.  Our school systems are not advocating anti-Semitism or communist principles but rather are informing students of world cultures and communication impact. As this case potentially goes to a jury trial, I would be surprised to see the Plaintiff win over the Defendants as the basis of the Establishment Clause and the Juris Prudence which exists surrounding such a topic would not qualify this situation as promoting a National religion.