Maine's Tuition Program Might Be Forced to Pay for Religious Education

In June of this year, federal judges ruled on a case regarding Maine’s tuition program that pays for approved, non-sectarian private school tuition of students that live in districts without a public secondary school, which is 143 of the total 206 districts in the state. Maine also has a state law that does not allow for the use of tax-payer funds to pay for any sectarian institutions, so the program will only pay for certain private schools that the district has arranged to have students attend. Students that wanted to attend Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy were denied their claim to tuition because it would be used “to teach students religious doctrine and train them in religious rites and observances.” They filed a lawsuit saying that their exclusion from the program is because of their religious affiliation and is therefore unconstitutional.

Organizations that have sided with Maine’s school board are the ACLU of Maine, the national ACLU, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). They all submitted an amicus brief in support of the defendant, A. Pender Makin in Carson v Makin. Assistant Attorney General Eric Dreiband points out that students and their families cannot be excluded from benefit programs based on their faith, which would be a violation of their First Amendment rights. The court cited Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v Comer (2017) a Supreme Court case in which the Court held  “denying a generally available benefit solely on account of religious identity imposes a penalty on the free exercise of religion.” The ACLU states that the schools involved in the case discriminate against LGBTQ people and non-Christians. Temple Academy specifically requires its faculty to sign a statement that reads “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted” and Bangor Christian requires students to renounce their gender identity if they come out as part of the LGBTQ community.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It has also been interpreted to include state and local governments from violating these rights as well. The question this case raises is: does the exclusion of students from receiving tuition benefits from the Maine tuition program violate the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment? On the other hand: would allowing the program to pay for sectarian schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? The Maine state law that says tax-payer money cannot fund sectarian institutions has been upheld as Constitutional by four different court cases (Strout v Albanese; Bagley v Raymond Sch. Dept; Anderson v Town of Durham; Joyce v State). Maine's district court ended up denying the students and their families the ruling but recognized that this case will most likely work its way up the court system on appeals.

I think the future rulings on the case will defend Maine’s tuition program and the overall prohibition of using tax-payer money for sectarian institutions.

Although I do agree with the Assistant Attorney General that this does exclude religious groups from a governmental benefit programs, I think that since Maine’s law about funding sectarian institutions has been upheld, this ruling will also be upheld throughout the court system. I think the only way for the program to be fair is if it pays for all private schooling, regardless of religious affiliation; or if it pays for no religious schooling, which it does. The program does not prioritize one religion over the other and does not prohibit students from attending sectarian schools. If students wish to attend a religious private school, they are free to do so on their own dime. To allocate tax-payer funds for religious schooling would violate the wall of separation between church and state that is effectively protected by Maine state law.

Calif. legislature approves measure criticizing pastors for not embracing LGBT identities

Last week the California Senate passed Concurrent Resolution 99 in a party-line vote. Concurrent Resolution 99 formally demands that people of faith be more tolerant to members of the LGBTQ community when councelling them. The legislation was sponsored by state Assemblyman Evan Low, a fairly democratic candidate. The text of the resolution condemns pastors and religious counselors assisting those who are struggling with unwanted same sex attraction and gender confusion. It also labels the religious ideologies of these pastors as "stigmatizing beliefs" that contribute to depression and suicide. Concurrent Resolution 99 comes just a year after Bill 2943 was passed, which would have labeled the counselling options of pastors and religious leaders as consumer fraud. However, Bill 2943 was never signed by the governor, therefore never becoming law.

The issue at hand regards the free exercise clause of the Constitution. As the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The whole point to this part of the Constitution is to protect the religious beliefs of citizens. It is these pastors and counselors' religious beliefs that go against the LGBTQ ideals. The California legislation condemned the religious beliefs of said pastors and counselors on the grounds that they discriminate towards the LGBTQ community. However, this piece of legislation is a resolution, meaning that it does not have the force of law behind it. Resolutions are unenforceable. In addition, these beliefs do and can cause people harm at times. Beliefs become intolerable when they start to physically hurt citizens. This question still stands: does Concurring Resolution 99 of the California Senate go against the Constitution?

In my opinion, Concurring Resolution 99 is unconstitutional. The main point of the free exercise clause is to protect the religious beliefs of U.S. citizens. While it is not a very welcoming belief, it is the right of these pastors and counselors to hold such a religious belief. They are not imposing on nor coercing anyone to conform to their religion either. This resolution may not have the force of law behind it, but it is a piece of legislation enacted by the government. The government is still condemning citizens due to their religious beliefs, which is unconstitutional. This is an act of coercion passed by the California government. The government should stay neutral in all religious affairs. Next is the principle of discrimination in these beliefs. The religious beliefs of these people may in fact cause harm to others. However, the circumstances are different because the holders of the beliefs are not outspokenly slandering the LGBTQ community. The members of the LGBTQ community are coming to the religious leaders and talking to them about their unwanted same sex attraction or gender confusion. They are voluntarily and willingly meeting with the counselors in private to discuss these matters. Therefore, any harm caused by the pastors' opinions is not at the fault of the pastors. I think California Republican state Senator Andreas Borgeas said it best: "When an individual seeks therapy or guidance before a religious leader, whether it be a mosque, a temple, or a church, that's a private setting... to disallow or create the pathway where we tell individuals they cannot say certain things should give us pause." This issue is extremely important because it is a complete violation of First Amendment rights. If left untouched, this legislation and the ideas surrounding it could cause a catastrophic rabit hole of issues down the road for the United States.

Muslim Death Rites and Alabama Death-Row Protocol

Earlier this year in February, The Supreme court approved the execution of a Muslim man, Domineque Ray in the absence of a requested appropriate religious adviser. It was determined that allowing entrance to the execution chamber to an outside spiritual adviser, who was not a trained prison employee, would be a security threat to execution protocol. In response to Ray’s request, the Alabama Department of Correction (ADOC) amended their protocol to no longer permit any spiritual adviser whatsoever in the execution chamber. According to Ray’s attorney, days before his scheduled execution date, he learned that his imam would not be given access to the execution chamber and immediately filed emergency-stay paperwork.  A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta ruled in Ray’s favor and stayed the execution, saying Mr. Ray had presented “a powerful Establishment Clause claim.” Following this, ADOC’s attorneys filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to vacate the stay of the execution. They insisted that “The state should be allowed to proceed with the serious and solemn responsibility of conducting executions in an orderly and secure fashion.” In response to this application, Ray’s lawyers urged the justices to expedite the litigation of Ray’s appeal. However, in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court voted to vacate the stay on account of the fact that Ray’s appeal on religious grounds had come too late.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  The very purpose of this free exercise and establishment clause is to avoid preferential or discriminatory treatment of any particular religious denomination. This forms the backbone of American citizens’ right to religious liberty. Decisions like this call to question the government’s commitment to protecting that liberty.  The state of Alabama’s laws and policies regulating execution protocol were clearly hostile towards Non-Christian religions. As Justice Kagan said, giving the dissenters opinion, it basically gave prisoners the option of having Christian death rites or none whatsoever. The Supreme Court’s subsequent decision to permit the state to carry out Ray’s execution in this manner was a violation of his right to freedom of religious exercise according to the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Court’s support of the practice of this protocol in itself can be regarded as establishment or preference of one religion over others in gross violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court’s only justification in approving this gross infraction on his religious freedom was the fact that he had “waited too long” to speak up about it. Even this fact was later rebutted by Justice Kagan as she reminded the court that Ray had only found out that his Imam would not actually be let into the room from a prison guard 5 days before he ended up filing his paperwork. Can the government truly claim to be religiously impartial when it approves and permits such blatantly religiously discriminatory practices?

I think that this case is just another in a long list of instances where the US government has pointedly met the Muslim community with hostility. Just last term the Supreme court approved the Trump administration’s travel ban which targeted immigrants from certain Muslim-majority countries. In Trump v Hawaii 2018, the Court in a 5-4 decision, miraculously held that the Proclamation did not in fact violate the Establishment Clause. I am not sure how this law that sought to pointedly refuse entry to people who just happened to be of a particular religious denomination was seen as anything but an endorsement or establishment of their religious opposition. Time and time again the US Supreme Court seems to be becoming less and less religiously impartial with their rulings to the point where it begs to question whether the separation between church and state truly exists. I think if the US government wants to stay true to its claim to religious plurality and impartiality, decisions like the one made in Ray’s case cannot continue to happen. The court cannot continue to support the religious denigration of its citizens, particularly with regards to something as serious and absolute and death rites.

Religious Discrimination in Foster Care Agencies

Back in 2014, Aimee Maddonna was turned away from a foster care agency in Greenville, South Carolina because of her Catholic faith. Miracle Hill Ministries, the state’s largest taxpayer-funded foster care agency, happens to only accept Protestant Christians to serve as volunteers and mentors. The agency states that the applicants must agree that the Bible is “the only… authoritative Word of God,” dismissing Catholics, Jews, and other applicants who do not base their beliefs solely on the Bible. Maddonna recalled that Miracle Hill said her family was a perfect fit for foster children, and that the final step of the application process was to give the name of her church as a reference. When she had done so, she was denied the right to volunteer for the agency. 

Rather than stopping Miracle Hill from continuing this practice, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster and the Trump Administration gave their approval for government-funded religious discrimination. In early 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established state regulations that ensure government-funded agencies like Miracle Hill do not deny services to the public on the basis of religion. However, in February 2018, McMaster requested the Trump Administration provide a religious exemption from this regulation so that taxpayer-funded foster care agencies in South Carolina could deny the right to volunteer on the basis of religion without losing their funding. Before receiving a response, McMaster issued an executive order to permit such religious preference in foster care agencies.

Then, in January 2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy allowing all government-funded foster care agencies in South Carolina to explicitly reject potential volunteers whom they deem practice the “wrong” religion. The Trump Administration cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as justification for passing this policy. RFRA claims “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” If the government does place a substantial burden on a belief, the government must provide a compelling state interest for doing so, as well as prove that the government pursued its actions in the least burdensome way.

On February 15, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed Maddonna v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, to reverse this policy of religious discrimination using taxpayer dollars. This begs the question: would requiring the foster care agency to act against its religious convictions violate its right to free exercise?

Although this is a controversial situation, I believe that the foster care agency should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. After all, Miracle Hill is funded by taxpayers, and so it seems reasonable that the taxpayers should be able to volunteer at Miracle Hill at their free will, with no restrictions. If this agency was privately funded and all the children preferred to be housed by Protestant Christians, then this would be justifiable religious discrimination. However, it is in the children’s best interest if the foster care agency is not allowed to exercise such religious discrimination. Relating to Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there are many levels to this debate, but child well-being should be at the forefront of the argument.

To counteract my viewpoint, Miracle Hill told local press that they refer applicants who are not accepted at Miracle Hill to other agencies that will place children with their families. While this seems to solve the issue of child safety, it still causes societal problems. As the largest provider in the state, this means the denied applicants will need to travel farther from home or deal with the state Department of Social Services in order to help these children. These additional restrictions may decrease the number of potential foster parents within the state.

Lastly, I do not agree with the Trump administration’s interpretation of RFRA. I believe that the policy enacted places more of a burden on society than a policy eliminating such religious discrimination. The argument can be made that placing a burden on the free exercise of the agency is necessary for dealing with the compelling state interest of child safety and the growing number of foster children.

Based on the policy that is already in place, I believe that the court will end up siding with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In a similar case this year, two foster mothers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the right of a Philadelphia Catholic foster care agency to have a contract with the city without having to house children with same-sex couples. Although a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania ruled against Catholic Social Services, this situation is different because South Carolina already has a policy in place that is supported by higher administration.

U.S. court rejects atheists' appeal over 'In God We Trust' on money

“In God We Trust’ is the official motto of the United States. It was placed on United States coins in 1864 then later placed on paper currencies by the mid 1960s. President Dwight Eisenhower signed a law making the phrase the national motto in 1956 due to the increased religious sentiment during the Civil War.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court stated that printing ‘In God We Trust’ on U.S. currencies is constitutional, citing its longstanding use and saying it was not threatening. Recent arguments made by 29 atheists, children of atheists and atheists groups claims that inscribing the national motto on bills and coins violates the first amendment, free speech and religious rights. Atheists are people who disbelieve or have a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Their demands were rejected by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender said it also did not constitute an establishment of religion due to a review of “historical practices” stated in a 2014 Supreme Court decision. Gruender also states that the Constitution lets the government express our tradition of religious freedom and that by putting the motto on currency “comports with early understandings of the Establishment Clause” without forcing a religious observance on the matter. 

Tuesdays 3-0 decision reviewed a previous court ruling in December 2016. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld the use of “In God We Trust” on currency in May. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Michael Newdow, stated that this issue is “utterly revolting” and that “the history of governmental denigration of a suspect class should trump [the] principle” with the neutrality be the “touchstone” for analyzing the claims under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. It was also pointed out in this article that Newdow is known for an unsuccessful litigation challenging the inclusion of “under God” in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

Should it be constitutional for the courts to allow “In God We Trust” as the U.S. motto? For me, the answer is yes. This issue is important because it represents how the implicated traditions from centuries ago are still followed today. The motto also symbolizes the pride and love one has for our country which helps create camaraderie between Americans. The Congressional reaffirmation of “In God We Trust” is a move that solidifies the foundation set by the Founding Fathers, who established this nation on the belief that we have certain inalienable rights that are endowed by our Creator, not specifying a certain god or higher power. 

I understand the arguments that were made by the groups of atheists in that our nation's motto objectifies their personal beliefs. They do not believe in "God," but their money says they do. Atheist Ambassadors have launched a We The People petition to remove “In God We Trust” from all U.S. currency, stating it “violates the principle of state and church separation.”

However, it was made clear multiple times in the court ruling that our nation's motto does not violate the First Amendment freedom to speech and religious rights. Gruender explained in the article that the motto did not constitute an establishment of religion under a Supreme Court ruling requiring a review of “historical practices.” He states, "The Constitution does not prevent the Government from promoting and 'celebrat[ing] our tradition of religious freedom,' even if the means of doing so — here, adding the national motto to U.S. money — was motivated in part because of religious sentiment.' Placing 'In God We Trust' on coins and currency is consistent with historical practices." 

I believe that this is a feel good tool and means nothing to most. Many do trust in God, but it is not because it is printed on our money. Carrying a cross does not make you a Christian either. When the Founders wrote the Declaration and the Constitution, they wanted to make sure everyone’s religious freedom were observed. The reason the US does not have an established Church or official religion is because of the numerous different religions and views from the Revolutionary period. ‘In God We Trust’ should never be removed from our currency as it is an original signature of our country and a key identifying piece of who we are as Americans.

Source: US court rejects atheists appeal over ‘In God We Trust’ on money by Jonathan Stempel

Role of Public Sectarian Prayer in Government Settings

On March 25, State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s invocation took the podium as the House chamber’s first female Muslim, Movita Johnson-Harrell was sworn in. Borowicz led a prayer that mentioned Jesus 13 times in less than two minutes, sparking controversy among Pennsylvania lawmakers and citizens at large.

In her 2018 campaign, Borowicz, married to a pastor, ran as a Christian conservative and made many biblical references throughout her campaign. She also founded Make a Stand USA, a nonprofit organization that holds prayer rallies, hoping to bring the country back to God. Some lines in Borowicz’s prayer during the convocation included: “Jesus, we’ve lost sight of you. We’ve forgotten you, God, in our country” and “Jesus, you are our only hope.” She then ended the prayer with a reference to the New Testament that “every knee shall bow” in the name of Jesus.

Johnson-Harrell was offended by the prayer, stating that “It was very chaotic and disrespectful.” Looking to the future, Johnson-Harrell hopes lawmakers will be able to focus on the matters of governing — not arguing about religion and religious prayer.

Although Pennsylvania has prided itself on religious tolerance in the past, Jesse Garner, the board chair of Interfaith Philadelphia believes that Borowicz’s prayer did not fit the tradition of religious tolerance. Borowicz’s speech illustrated the problems that can accompany prayers that appear to favor one faith over another. John Inazu, a professor of law at Washington University affirmed that “The law encourages generic, nonsectarian prayer,” yet “Many people who want to pray in public want to pray specific, nongeneric prayer.” Furthermore, in commenting on Borowicz’s prayer, he acknowledges that “Just because we have the right to say something doesn’t mean we should say it.”

In a society that is increasingly pluralistic, the challenge of navigating public prayer and the separation of church and state is at the forefront. The 2014 Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway highlights the debate surrounding sectarian prayers at government meetings. In a 5-4 majority in favor of the Town of Greece, it was decided that the Town of Greece in New York may permit chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs argued that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, yet the Supreme court ruled that opening Greece’s town board meetings with a prayer offered by members of the clergy did not violate the Establishment Clause since the practice was consistent with the tradition followed by Congress and state legislatures, the town did not discriminate against minority faiths in determining who may offer a prayer, and the prayer did not coerce participation with those non-adherent.

Although this Supreme Court case set the precedent to allow State Rep. Stephanie Borowicz’s invocation prayer, not deeming it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, I do believe that sectarian prayers in a government setting should be considered a violation of the First Amendment. Generally speaking, legislative prayer should be broadly inclusive since government representatives, at all levels, represent the people, and thus their statements and prayers must respect all citizens. Town, state, or federally sponsored sectarian prayers violate the basic rule that requires government neutrality on matters of religion. Neutrality, meaning no one religion is preferred by the government. Allowing Jewish or Catholic prayers, but not Islamic or Buddhist prayers is an example of potential preferential treatment. This is especially important due to the existence of both majority and minority religions in the United States. By ignoring the burden that sectarian prayer imposes on citizens with different religious beliefs or without religious beliefs, citizens are marginalized. The majority faith in a town or state has the power to dictate the prayers, thus excluding minority religions who must stand up for theit religion and push for diversity of religious practices and acknowledgment. If a town or state government can identify itself with a particular religious statement or tradition, then what is the establishment of religion clause preventing?

Although religion is a large part of civil society and prayers have been used for ceremonial purposes, the only way to fully separate church and state is by banning prayer in all government settings. By leading sectarian prayers, citizens are excluded and can be left feeling unwelcome, offended, or confused. Citizens have the right to practice whichever religion they believe in, and no one should have the authority to determine which prayers are appropriate and which are not. Even if secular prayers were permitted, bias would evidently erode this process in determining the appropriate content of prayers leading majority sects to be preferred over minority sects.

This conflict alludes to the contention between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Written together, the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Although citizens have the right to hold personal religious beliefs and opinions, the government does have the authority to interfere with religious practices. I believe this ability to interfere with religious practices should be applied to the use of prayers in government settings. In my opinion, by allowing the free exercise of religion in the form of prayer in government meetings, speeches, invocations, and court cases, the establishment clause is violated.

Religious Belief and Employment

In 2014, Idaho construction worker and father George Ricks tried to become an independent contractor. In Idaho, it is a misdemeanor to work as a contractor without first registering with the state. Part of this process requires the registering party to provide a social security number. As an observant Christian, Ricks believes that it is against his faith to “participate in a governmental universal identification system, especially to buy or sell goods and services”. This comes out of a Biblical interpretation from Revelations 13:16-18. Ricks asked the Idaho Board of Contractors to grant him an exemption on the basis of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In July 2019, the Idaho Supreme Court declined to hear Ricks’s case. In response to this, Becket, on Ricks’s behalf, filed a petition to the SCOTUS. 

The salient issue in this case is whether the Idaho Board of Contractors violated Ricks’s rights to freely exercise religion by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification other than a social security number. 

I believe that given the circumstances of the case, Ricks’s Constitutional rights to free exercise of religion were violated. I will break down this argument by addressing specific details about the case, as well as interrogating previously established Constitutional precedent related to the free exercise clause. In doing so, I will also provide counter-arguments and rebuttals, which ultimately will support Ricks. 

It is important to understand specific details about this case. According to Ricks’s defense, “a federal law dictates that the Board of Contractors will receive extra funding if it collects contractors’ social security numbers.” There was a clear financial incentive for the Board of Contractors to deny Ricks an exemption based on his religious belief. Additionally, “other licensing laws already grant accommodations to foreign residents who don’t have social security numbers.” Foreigners residing in the U.S. should not be given preferential treatment to American citizens, especially with regards to Constitutionally-protected rights. Ricks was willing and able to provide any other legitimate form of identification, including his birth certificate. 

There are two cases that come to mind with regard to free exercise which I believe support Ricks. First is the broad precedent set in 1879 with Reynolds v. The United States. One point made in this case is that the free exercise clause protects belief, not action. This point does not support Ricks because he was acting on his religious beliefs. However, the text in the decision also states that “when the offence consists of a positive act which is knowingly done, it would be dangerous to hold that the offender might escape punishment because he religiously believed that the law which he had broken ought never to have been made” (Muñoz, 17). 

The second case of relevance is the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith. This decision held that the free exercise clause generally requires no religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. (Background for this case can be found here.) In taking up Ricks’s case, the Supreme Court would be forced to revisit this decision. 

The First Amendment begins with the expression “Congress shall make no law...”. This was amended in Cantwell v. Connecticut, and the free exercise clause was applied to states. Even if the Cantwell decision had not been decided this way, the state should not bar Ricks from becoming an independent contractor on ethically unjustifiable grounds. No slippery slope argument can be made with regards to Ricks because there is a clear way for the government to solve the problem (i.e., obtaining other legitimate methods of identification). In a circumstance as such, the state should defer to Ricks’s right to freely exercise religion because this action does not negatively impact anybody else. Ricks isn’t asking for an exemption to slaughter a sacrificial lamb at one of his construction sites. 

In summary, I presented the basic information regarding the facts of the case. Then, I identified the salient issue in the case – whether the Idaho Board of Contractors violated Ricks’s right to freely exercise religion by refusing to accept alternative forms of identification other than a social security number. Next, I provided examples of two cases decided in the U.S. Supreme Court which establish precedent for Constitutional limitations on free exercise. Lastly, I offered my own analysis and response to the issue at hand.  States should almost always heir on the side of protecting constituents’ religious freedoms, so long as they do not pose harm or risk to other individuals. 

Anti-Trans Housing on Religious Grounds

In May, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) proposed that federally-funded homeless shelters should have the right to turn transgender people away on religious grounds, and/or to force trans women to be housed based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity. Some backlash around this new proposal comes from those who are in support of the Equal Access Rule (2012), which prohibits federal housing discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. This proposal also comes off an incident in 2017 in which the HUD removed information on its website that pertained to instructions for emergency shelters on how to effectively serve homeless transgender people and it also removed policy proposals that would require shelters to inform LGBTQ residents of their rights within HUD-funded housing. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, 1 out of 8 transgender people have experienced homelessness within the last year -- "putting them at risk of physical and sexual violence and being forced into sex work", the probability of which would most likely increase if this policy proposition is approved. However, this is not the first time federally-funded housing has been at odds with LGBTQ rights and protections.

In the early 2000’s, the Salvation Army, a Christian nonprofit homeless shelter/soup kitchen/thrift store (which, coincidentally, receives federal funding), had numerous scandals in which it adhered by anti-LGBTQ housing and general help practices. The most notable of which were: in 1998 the Salvation Army of San Francisco turned down $3.5 million in aid because they would be required to give spousal benefits to same-sex partners, in 2001 the United States Salvation Army wanted to make a deal with the Bush Administration that would make it exempt from local policies banning anti-gay discrimination, and in 2012 a worker at a Salvation Army in Vermont was fired after it was found out she was bisexual. The Salvation Army has since established, via its website, that anti-LGBTQ policy and action is no longer tolerated within the organization.

It seems to me that the HUD proposition not only contradicts the Equal Access Rule of 2012 (also an HUD policy – I wish I had the time and space to get into the hypocrisy of this new proposal in relation to the information presented on their website, but I don’t), but it also allows for an establishment of religion within shelters funded by taxpayers, and this would allow for the return of early-2000s-Salvation-Army-style homeless shelters, which, in turn would lead to a much more dangerous life for transgender homeless people.

Federally-funded homeless shelters receive money from the government, and this money from the government actually comes from the public – in the form of taxes. This violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment because it is establishing religion (though not a specific one) within the government via publically-funded housing programs. The HUD proposal violates this clause because, by being federally funded, these homeless shelters are a representation of the government, and allowing them to discriminate against the transgender community based on religious grounds is essentially a government-endorsement of those religious grounds. In terms of the Salvation Army, however, though they do receive federal funding, they also receive private funding and funding via sales at their thrift shops. This makes their religious establishment a bit more of a grey area; because, while federal funding of a Christian organization promotes establishment of religion within the government, much of the private funding for the Salvation Army comes from churches and other religious organizations, as well as the thrift stores, and privately-funded organizations are free to establish and adhere to religion as they please. 

Though the Salvation Army has since denounced many of its anti-LGBTQ statements and actions in the early 2000’s, it seems as though the public housing sector, as well as other sectors of the government (such as the military and the health and human services department) are becoming increasingly anti-LGBTQ, specifically anti-trans, since Trump took office. Mara Keisling, Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, recently said in an interview with the Washington Post, “The Trump administration is, once again, targeting the most vulnerable trans people by empowering shelters to turn people away and deny them equal access to services.” And, while not all of laws that have been proposed or passed have allowed anti-trans practices based on religious grounds, many of them, including the HUD proposal and the Department of Health and Human Services proposal, have – and in my opinion, they promote an establishment of religion within the government.

Vaccination or Expulsion

On August 26th,  NY State Supreme Court Justice Denise Hartman upheld the ban on religious exemptions to vaccinations. In her decision, she said that she was deeply concerned over the "potential harm to unvaccinated individuals if the injunction is granted." She went on to cite a 1944 Supreme Court decision regarding the issue, saying "The right to practice religion does not include liberty to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death." This quote is the basis of my argument on this issue. 

My interest in this topic inspired me to learn more about the implications of this decision. Following up on our vaccination discussion from last week, I found a recent article (note that this is the main article I am referencing for this response) that personalizes the issue and delves deeper into the ongoing controversy. The piece, written by Sharon Otterman, highlights contrasting viewpoints from different religious groups on the topic. In addition, the article discusses opposing vaccination exemption options between states, noting New York as the recent "no tolerance" state. Maine, on the other hand, allows exceptions for special needs students. The article is mostly fact-based, as Otterman attempts to stay neutral when presenting the conflicting viewpoints. However, through multiple quotes referencing significant school administrative and religious figures, Otterman does a fantastic job presenting the information in a way in which the reader can formulate an opinion for one side or the other. The main question is: can religious exemptions be accepted as a reason to refuse vaccinations? 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is a quote from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment that we will be referencing often throughout the semester. While in essence this clause defends actions made on behalf of certain religious beliefs, we know that no right is absolute. Many examples in this article highlight the detrimental aspects of permitting religious exemptions for vaccinations. The main issue here is that religious exemptions for vaccinations can cause those who do abide by the laws to become very sick.  Furthermore, the rationality for arguing against vaccinations is flawed. 

Take the example of Jacquelynn Vance-Pauls, a real-estate lawyer in upstate New York, who was the reason her 14-year-old autistic son was expelled from school. While Vance-Pauls defends her stance on vaccinations due to Christianity and the readings of the Bible, she also states that she believes vaccines contributed to her son's autism. Multiple studies have shown that there is no connection between vaccines and autism. Vance-Pauls is preventing her special needs son from receiving a proper education as well as spreading dangerous false pretenses.

I also want to take a moment to criticize the Hasidic Jewish community, an ultra-religious group of Jewish people who, similarly to Vance-Pauls, justify being "anti-vaccines" from the spread of false information. As a Jew myself, despite not being religious whatsoever, I am frustrated by the viewpoints of some Hasidic Jews as it puts the Jewish community in a bad light. This, to me, is dangerous in times of revamped antisemitism worldwide. In a separate New York Times article, Hasidic Jew Moishe Kahan, an editor for Peach magazine, said that "Vaccines contain monkey, rat and pig DNA as well as cow-serum blood, all of which are forbidden for consumption according to kosher dietary law." There is a significant issue with this statement. Most notable Hasidic Rabbis agree that vaccines are kosher and consistently urge all members of the community to get vaccinated. I hold the belief that even if all Rabbis unanimously decided that vaccines were not kosher, those who do keep kosher should still be required to be vaccinated. Public health and safety should always be the number one priority of federal, state, and local governments. This spread of dangerous misinformation is detrimental to public health and can draw in vulnerable ultra-religious people to conform to this idea that vaccines are harmful.  

Ultimately, how could you argue against an idea that protects the vast majority of its constituents? "We have 5,000 students in my district," said Lorna R. Lewis, the superintendent of the Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District in Long Island. "If there are 10 that have hard-standing vaccine adverse parents, I have 4,990 others whose safety I have to think about." In a democratic society, under no circumstance should exemptions be made for such a small percentage of people based on religion when this decision can be potentially harmful to many. Furthermore, exemptions would cause a slippery slope for future court decisions if a precedent was set that religion can overrule public health concerns. Lastly, the spread of misinformation could cause vulnerable people to become "anti-vaccines," a belief that could not only threaten the young people of today, but also future generations as well.

“Discrimination” in the Workplace

Recently, there has been increased focus on LGBTQ rights within the religious community. In particular, instances of potential illegal discrimination within religious institutions have resulted in court cases going to the Supreme Court. In October alone, the Supreme Court will hear three cases dealing with LGBTQ rights in regard to discrimination that could be protected under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In a story covered by NBC’s Julie Moreau, she details the case of Lynn Starkey, a long-time guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis. After 4 decades of employment, she was fired after school officials discovered her same sex marriage. The current case thus asks are Catholic schools protected under religious grounds to discriminate based on same sex marriages? 

Before continuing, I feel that it is important to distinguish what it means to “discriminate” in this instance. In the case of hiring and maintaining staff, discriminating would mean favoring a certain attribute more than another. Discrimination is known to be legal in many religious cases. Moreau states “any employer can discriminate on the basis of religion if religion is considered necessary for the exercise of the job” (Moreau). Two clear examples of this would be kosher butcher preferring Jewish employees and a Baptist school preferring a Baptist teacher.

Lynn Starkey had been a guidance counselor at Roncalli High School for nearly 40 years when she was fired after officials discovered that she was married to another woman. While on the surface many will quickly jump to defend her citing Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which protects LGBTQ community members from discrimination in the workplace. Title VII states its intent is to “to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations” however, there is more to the legislation. In SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702] the bill states that “This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to ... a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation.” This could mean that because the school is Catholic and has a specific religious mission, the elements of Title VII would not apply. If Starkey is to be considered serving in a ministerial position, the school would have the right to discriminate, favoring other potential employees who may be better suited to articulate the perspective of the Catholic Church. 

When Lynn Starkey agreed to work for the Catholic school, she was under the understanding that the mission of the Catholic school system is “to communicate the Catholic faith to the next generation" according to the Archdiocese of Indianapolis (Moreau). In further discussion, the archdiocese explained “To accomplish their mission, Catholic schools ask all teachers, administrators, and guidance counselors to uphold the Catholic faith by word and action, both inside and outside the classroom." This thus brings into question what the exact stance of the Catholic Church is on LGBTQ marriage (Moreau). Currently, the Catholic Church still does not condone gay marriage or civil unions, thus making Starkey’s action a breach of the Catholic mission. 

A similar court case does exist from 2012. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the school fired Cheryl Perich who had been diagnosed with narcolepsy. When the school fired her, she claimed that under the Americans with Disabilites Act that she was being discriminated against. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Perich was to be considered a minister and could not be protected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Similarly, I imagine the Supreme Court will rule that Starkey was operating in a ministerial role of a religious institution because she worked for a Catholic school that has a clearly religious mission. If she had been working for a non-religious school, the ruling would be completely different. 

In my opinion, I forecast that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Catholic School. Because Starkey was operating under the understanding that she must uphold the standards of the Catholic Church while working at the school, any explicit violation of such rules would be an instance causing them to favor another potential employee. 

Ultimately, this case will come down to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of whether Starkey can be considered as serving in a ministerial role. If the Court rules that the Catholic school is a religious institution and that Starkey is thus serving in a ministerial role, Catholic schools would have the ability to discriminate on grounds of same-sex marriage; however, if the school is treated as a secular educational institution, Lynn Starkey will likely win. Because of the explicitly religious mission and the previous result of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, I believe the Catholic schools’ employees will be treated as ministers subject to discrimination. 

NBC Article

EEOC

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Catholic Views of Same Sex Marriage