Mobile Menu
Other (113)
SB 224 would force school boards “to display the national motto in each building it uses.”
In fact, in 2005 the Supreme Court struck down a display that included the Ten Commandments along with many of the items mentioned in this statute: the “endowed by their creator” passage from the Declaration of Independence; the Preamble to the state Constitution; “In God We Trust”; a congressional record excerpt proclaiming the Year of the Bible; a presidential proclamation designating a National Day of Prayer and Humiliation; an excerpt from a presidential writing stating that “[t]he Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man”; a presidential proclamation marking 1983 the Year of the Bible; and the Mayflower Compact.
The Supreme Court struck down the displays in part because, despite the historical nature of the displays, the counties had “a predominantly religious purpose behind the . . . display.” SB 1289 would add one more religious phrase to this list, encouraging public school teachers to promote religion, and Christianity in particular, to their students.
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Arizona’s SB 1289 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has proposed the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) — a name that would make George Orwell’s Big Brother proud. HB 372 is modeled after the FADA and does nothing to defend the First Amendment. Rather, it grants religious citizens special privileges, including the right to discriminate against other Americans for exercising their constitutionally protected rights.
The act is a masterpiece of “doublethink.” First, it prohibits the government from taking “any discriminatory action against” against a person or business who is discriminating against LGBT people for exercising their constitutionally protected right to marry. The bill labels as “discriminatory” governmental action intended to end discrimination. This is no more acceptable or justifiable than if Congress acted to defend hotels that turn away interracial couples because the Christian owners of those hotels believe that “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. ... [because] he did not intend for the races to mix,” as was claimed as a defense of anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s.
Second, the First Amendment Defense Act purports to deal with “the issue of same-sex marriage,” but also would permit discrimination based on a religious belief that “sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.” This would, for instance, allow for discrimination against unmarried heterosexual couples.
Finally, our First Amendment needs no “defense” from Congress. Rather, we need to defend the First Amendment from members of Congress who seek to legislate away its guarantees. In fact, the First Amendment is specifically meant to limit Congress: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” Codifying religious favoritism is precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.
Some homophobic religious beliefs are not simply bigoted or repugnant, but call for violence, e.g. the extermination of gay people (See Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”) The First Amendment Defense Act would itself be an “abomination” of our First Amendment, by elevating certain religious beliefs over every other belief, even equal protection laws.
Religious belief does not need to be reasonable, logical or even comport with reality, yet this bill would give such belief the force of law. It would give a single religion’s dogma the legal sanction of all Americans, of “We the People.”
The last time Congress acted to overturn a Supreme Court decision with legislation meant to reinforce religious freedom, it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). This is the bill that the far religious wing of the country is using to force their dogma on everyone else, as the Green family, owners of Hobby Lobby, were able to do in challenging Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. Time has shown what a poor idea RFRA is.
Currently, theocrats are attempting to use the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to justify discrimination against LGBT citizens. Tony Perkins, of the Family Research Council was explicit when he wrote:
"In at least 10 states, conservatives are fighting back with a string of Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRAs). Although each state’s may vary, the bottom line is that they give men and women of all faiths a powerful tool to stop the government from walking all over their beliefs on issues like marriage and sexuality. If Washington State had a RFRA, for example, Baronnelle Stutzman would actually have legal grounds for beating back the government’s attack on her store."
Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers, refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding because of her religious beliefs. So far, courts are not buying the argument that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows discrimination in the name of god. So far. Enter the First Amendment Defense Act.
The religious right wants the First Amendment Defense Act passed to defend religion-based discrimination in court. Their strategy of turning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act from a shield (meant to protect rights) into a sword (meant to impose religious belief on others) backfired when the Hobby Lobby decision exposed that strategy. The backlash against that decision was powerful and swift. So apparently theocratic lawmakers figure, “why slog through the courts trying to alter Religious Freedom Restoration Act, when a new sanction for discrimination can be legislated?”
We should never allow our public officials to privilege bigotry, especially religiously motivated bigotry.
Five states — Oregon, Washington, California, Vermont, and Colorado, plus the District of Columbia — have passed legislation allowing mentally competent adult residents with a terminal illness to voluntarily request prescription medication that would allow the person to die in a peaceful manner rather than requiring them to endure the slow, undignified death by letting their illness run its natural course. A 1504 would add New Jersey to that list.
New Jersey’s Aid in Dying bill requires that a terminally ill patient making the choice to end his or her life must be a resident of New Jersey who is at least 18 years old, determined mentally capable of making the decision by two physicians and able to articulate an informed decision. To receive the medication, the patient needs to submit one written request, witnessed by at least two other people and two oral requests separated by at least 15 days. The current measure also criminalizes coercing a terminally ill patient to request the drug.
Tell your state representative that terminally ill individuals should have the right to choose when and how to end their lives. A 1504 grants this right and includes adequate safeguards to ensure that the law will not be abused.
HB 40 would require the Governor of Kentucky to declare a “Day of Prayer for Kentucky’s Students,” styled after the National Day of Prayer, a sectarian event that originated with the Rev. Billy Graham during his evangelical crusade in Washington, D.C., in 1952.
Graham expressed an openly Christian purpose, seeking such an annual proclamation by the president because he wanted “the Lord Jesus Christ” to be recognized across the land. Subsequently, the National Day of Prayer Task Force was created to “communicate with every individual the need for personal repentance and prayer, mobilizing the Christian community to intercede for America and its leadership.” Chair Shirley Dobson or her designate issues annual National Day of Prayer proclamations and submits them to elected leaders, choosing a theme with supporting scripture from the bible. The task force’s stated goal is to pressure as many mayors and other elected officials as possible to also issue National Day of Prayer proclamations.
As FFRF often says, nothing fails like prayer. Offering Kentucky students prayers not only accomplishes nothing, but it also gives lawmakers the illusion of having accomplished something, all while tacitly emboldening public school teachers and administrators to encourage their students to pray, thus exposing public schools to legal liability for no reason.
Five states — Oregon, Washington, California, Vermont, and Colorado, plus the District of Columbia — have passed legislation allowing mentally competent adult residents with a terminal illness to voluntarily request prescription medication that would allow the person to die in a peaceful manner rather than requiring them to endure the slow, undignified death by letting their illness run its natural course. HB 2739 would add Hawaii to that list.
Hawaii’s Death with Dignity bill requires that a terminally ill patient making the choice to end his or her life must be a resident of Hawaii who is at least 18 years old, determined mentally capable of making the decision by two physicians and able to articulate an informed decision. To receive the medication, the patient needs to submit one written request, witnessed by at least two other people, two oral requests, and one signed final attestation. The current measure also criminalizes coercing a terminally ill patient to request the drug.
Tell Hawaii senators that terminally ill individuals should have the right to choose when and how to end their lives. HB 2739 grants this right and includes adequate safeguards to ensure that the law will not be abused.
SF 3061 would force school boards to “provide a durable poster or framed copy of the national motto of the United States, ‘In God We Trust,’ for display in each school building in the district.”
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Minnesota’s SB 3061 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue.
The bill’s sponsor, Pastor Dan Hall, has openly admitted that the bill does have religious significance. In a video promoting the bill, he tried to justify this imposition of religion by saying, “if you read the [First] Amendment, that talks about how the church is protected from the state’s influence. It doesn’t go the other way around!” He repeated the bill’s religious purpose, “Our kids need to know that our country — our nation — was built on the idea that we have to have a respect and an honor, and a gratefulness, to a higher power, if you want to call it that. But, to God Almighty.”
In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the government may not endorse religion in general, or particular religious messages. The authors of the Establishment Clause repeatedly urged caution regarding the government promoting religion, which was also precisely the concern that drew many early Americans to this country. The Founding Fathers understood that religious liberty requires a secular government, undermining Hall’s wrongheaded defense of this openly religious bill.
In short, there is no doubt that SB 3061 is intended to promote a religious message. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, assisted by Colorado attorney Robert R. Tiernan, filed a federal lawsuit in 1994 challenging both the law adopting the religious slogan (1956), and the law requiring it to appear on all U.S. currency (1955). The Foundation lawsuit was dismissed by a 10th Circuit federal judge on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase. The Foundation appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which did not take the case in 1996.
As Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
Senate Bill 181 would embolden local government entities, specifically including public schools, to violate the state and federal constitutions. The bill attempts to avoid the obvious constitutional problems with the conclusory mandate that Ten Commandment displays “compl[y] with constitutional requirements, including, but to limited to, being intermingled with historical or educational items, or both, in a larger display.” This is an attempt to use a 2005 Supreme Court case to justify these displays, but the scheme is deeply misguided. SB 181 has an undeniable purpose of promoting Christianity, which makes it unconstitutional even with an attempt to “water down” the religious message through some “window-dressing” secular items.
The proposed amendment openly anticipates a constitutional challenge and states that no “public funds may be expended in defense of the constitutionality of this amendment.” This is an attempt to placate legislators who don’t want to waste taxpayer funds defending an obviously unconstitutional law, but it’s an empty promise. When a federal court rules against the state, then orders the state to reimburse the opposing side’s legal costs, taxpayers will have to foot that bill no matter what the state Constitution says. Just last month, a governmental body was required to pay more than three quarters of a million dollars after a failed attempt at defending a Ten Commandments monument.
Finally, this proposed amendment is a waste of time and ink. Ten Commandments monuments that “compl[y] with constitutional requirements” are — obviously — already allowed under current law. Alabama’s Constitution already has more than 900 amendments, and legislators have far more important things to do than telling public schools that they can do what’s already legal.
Passing this bill would needlessly waste more taxpayer money on an issue that has already been litigated and would hand Roy Moore a belated and entirely undeserved victory.
Contact your state senator today to voice your opposition to this patently unlawful bid to inject religion into its government structure.
HB 228 would add Alabama to a list of states that encourage schools to violate their students’ freedom of conscience by posting the phrase “In God We Trust” in classrooms. Other states also encourage the display of other religious documents, which have landed school districts in legal trouble when teachers incorrectly thought they were permitted to promote religion through these displays under the guise of patriotism. This is precisely the intent of HB 228.
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Alabama’s HB 228 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Foundation Co-President Anne Gaylor points out, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
HB 839 was a one-page bill that would require every school district in Florida to “require, in all of the schools of the district and in each building used by the district school board, the display of the state motto, ‘In God We Trust’ in a conspicuous place.” The bill’s text was rolled into a giant education bill, HB 7055, that is now on the governor’s desk.
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Florida’s HB 839 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue.
When HB 839 was considered by a House subcommittee, its supporters made clear that the phrase “In God We Trust” is intended to promote religious belief in a deity, not mere patriotism. Lawmakers bemoaned that “we’re taking God out of everything . . . just go into your community right now and see how many young people are even attending church anymore. Many of them don’t even value or respect life anymore.”
The bill’s sponsor, Pastor Daniels, also has unabashedly declared her theocratic intentions, which has led to complaints from FFRF in the past. Daniels recently posted a video to social media where she argued that “we have to be Kingdom-minded no matter what realm we operate in. We have to be Kingdom-minded in the church . . . and even in every position that I hold, whether I’m working in the professional arena, whether I’m working in the legislative arena, you have to be Kingdom-minded. I was getting ready to present this legislation to put prayer back into schools all over the state of Florida.”
This isn’t Daniels’ first time trying to push religion into public schools. In support of a bill last year that required schools to open “forums” at school events for religious speech, Daniels penned a long-winded comment on her Facebook page that tried to justify the law but instead fully admitted its religious purpose. She claimed that “young children were not allowed to pray over their meals” in public schools, a common and thoroughly debunked persecution myth. She also said she was horrified that a coach was not allowed to pray with his players, something that federal courts have held the U.S. Constitution requires and which this law does nothing to change.
In short, there is no doubt that HB 839 was intended to promote a religious message. The bill’s sponsor specifically hopes to undo decades of Supreme Court cases protecting public school students’ right to a secular government. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose. And now it will be included in a much larger education bill, HB 7055.
HB 7055 also creates two new school voucher programs that will funnel taxpayer dollars promised to public schools to private religious schools. These funds can even be used for private tutors or to purchase computers. Local media has discussed these new voucher programs and the serious threat they are to public schools.
Under SB 193, parents who pull their children out of the public school system may have the state pay into an educational savings account an amount equal to 95 percent of the statewide average basic support per pupil, plus “differential aid” that the student may qualify for. This amounts to at least $3,600 per student, but could be more than $8,000 for some students.
Parents could then use those funds for a variety of purposes, including enrolling their children in private religious schools, buying computers, or even paying for tutors.
The current bill includes an amendment that would give local school districts a paltry one-time grant of $1,500 for each student that leaves the district through this program, but the amendment does not go nearly far enough. This program would financially devastate public schools and would force New Hampshire taxpayers to fund private religious education. Further, the program would have virtually no accountability — a problem that has plagued voucher schemes around the country.
Notwithstanding a one-sentence opinion from the New Hampshire Attorney General, this program would violate the state constitution’s prohibition on using public funds for religious education. In 1992, the New Hampshire Supreme Court declared that another voucher scheme was unconstitutional because “[n]o safeguards exist[ed] to prevent the application of public funds to sectarian uses.” Opinion of the Justices (Choice in Education), 136 N.H. 357 (1992). SB 193 also has no safeguard preventing parents from redirecting public funds to religious education.
FFRF has consistently opposed voucher schemes around the country. These programs have hurt public schools in states such as Wisconsin, Indiana and North Carolina, while trampling the wall between state and church. New Hampshire should learn from these failures by rejecting SB 193 and any future attempts at sacrificing public education to advance religion.
More...
SB 1289 would add the state motto, “DITAT DEUS” (“God Enriches”), to AZ § 15-717, a statute that allows every public school in Arizona to display select phrases and “excerpts” from select historical documents. These phrases and documents are specifically chosen to encourage schools to promote religion.
In fact, in 2005 the Supreme Court struck down a display that included the Ten Commandments along with many of the items mentioned in this statute: the “endowed by their creator” passage from the Declaration of Independence; the Preamble to the state Constitution; “In God We Trust”; a congressional record excerpt proclaiming the Year of the Bible; a presidential proclamation designating a National Day of Prayer and Humiliation; an excerpt from a presidential writing stating that “[t]he Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man”; a presidential proclamation marking 1983 the Year of the Bible; and the Mayflower Compact.
The Supreme Court struck down the displays in part because, despite the historical nature of the displays, the counties had “a predominantly religious purpose behind the . . . display.” SB 1289 would add one more religious phrase to this list, encouraging public school teachers to promote religion, and Christianity in particular, to their students.
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Arizona’s SB 1289 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, assisted by Colorado attorney Robert R. Tiernan, filed a federal lawsuit in 1994 challenging both the law adopting the religious slogan (1956), and the law requiring it to appear on all U.S. currency (1955). The Foundation lawsuit was dismissed by a 10th Circuit federal judge on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase (1994). The Foundation appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which did not take the case in 1996.
As Foundation Co-President Anne Gaylor says, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the Office for Civil Rights at HHS encourages health care providers to refuse “to perform, accommodate or assist with certain health care services on religious or moral grounds.” Under this division’s policy, medical professionals — nurses, doctors and pharmacists — may refuse to treat transgender or other individual patients or take part in abortions, voluntary sterilizations or any health care they otherwise claim a religious or “moral” objection to.
“Once again we see this administration using the guise of ‘religious freedom’ to deny civil liberties and impose religious beliefs on others,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said of the new division when it was announced earlier this year.
H.R. 5123 to remove this dangerous and unnecessary division of HHS was introduced this week by Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.) FFRF encourages other lawmakers to support this move to provide common sense health care protection and to push back on yet another attempt to exempt religious adherents from essential laws.
“Denying care is no better than inflicting harm when you are a medical professional,” argues FFRF Co-President Dan Barker, “and Health and Human Services should be urging medical professionals to adhere to the Hippocratic oath, not a bronze-age book of ignorance, superstition, and bigotry.”
Please use our new automated system to contact your representatives and urge them to support this bill in order to stop government-sanctioned religious bigotry against U.S. citizens at their most vulnerable and helpless moments.
SB 1016 would require every school district in Oklahoma to display the words “In God We Trust” in every “public elementary and secondary school library and classroom in this state,” as well as each “public building or facility in this state that is maintained or operated by state funds.” While the bill also contemplates all of these displays being donated, theocratic organizations have been itching to supply them to public schools for years.
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question). Oklahoma’s SB 1016 is unquestionably intended as a religious message, highlighting just how wrong courts have been on this issue. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As Foundation Co-President Anne Gaylor says, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of Us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”
FFRF has brought legal challenges to the phrase “In God We Trust,” both as the national motto and on currency, but the phrase has survived due to a legal fantasy that it is merely patriotic and has no religious significance (although the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered this question).
When an identical bill was considered by a Florida House subcommittee, its supporters made clear that the phrase “In God We Trust” is meant to promote religious belief in a deity, not mere patriotism. Lawmakers bemoaned that “we’re taking God out of everything . . . just go into your community right now and see how many young people are even attending church anymore. Many of them don’t even value or respect life anymore.”
There is no doubt that bills to place “In God We Trust” in public schools are intended to promote a religious message. Attempted justifications about the bill’s patriotic goals are merely a smokescreen for its true religious purpose.
This bill is part of a national fundamentalist campaign to post “In God We Trust” in every public school classroom. Congress adopted the “In God We Trust” slogan in 1956 at the behest of the Knights of Columbus, which undertook a national lobbying campaign during the height of 1950s zealotry. The original U.S. motto, chosen by a distinguished committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams, is the Latin E Pluribus Unum (From Many, [Come] One). A direct challenge of the religious motto has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, assisted by Colorado attorney Robert R. Tiernan, filed a federal lawsuit in 1994 challenging both the law adopting the religious slogan (1956), and the law requiring it to appear on all U.S. currency (1955). The Foundation lawsuit was dismissed by a 10th Circuit federal judge on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase (1994). The Foundation appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which did not take the case in 1996.
As Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, the religious motto isn’t even accurate: “To be accurate it would have to read ‘In God Some of us Trust,’ and wouldn’t that be silly?”