Ashe has a troubling record of fighting to bring down the wall of separation between state and church.
In 2000, Ashe wrote that “the 5th Circuit is waging a war against religion in the public square.” This statement is concerning for seasoned First Amendment advocates, who will recognize the phrase “war against religion in the public square” as a theocratic dog whistle expressing frustration that Christianity is losing its privileged position within the government. It is not a phrase used by jurists who respect the First Amendment. Indeed, Ashe’s article suggested that the 5th Circuit wrongly decided five cases upholding the separation between state and church, as required by the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
The 5th Circuit has been historically one of the most hostile federal circuits on cases involving the separation between state and church. Characterizing the 5th Circuit’s enforcement of the Establishment Clause as a “war against religion” suggests that Ashe would use his position as a federal judge to advance a radical theocratic agenda meant to undermine the Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings.
Senator Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, asked Ashe to clarify his position on this issue in a written question, which he essentially refused to answer, stating only that the Fifth Circuit “faithfully perform[ed] its duty” at the time.
Ashe’s response to another question was even worse. He defended a “disclaimer” on public school textbooks warning students that the book contained facts about biological evolution. When asked whether he interprets the Establishment Clause to permit public schools to “present creationism as an alternative theory to evolution” — which it unequivocally does not, according to several Supreme Court rulings — Ashe pointed to a quote in one such case, Edwards v. Aguillard, that “teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind . . . might be” permissible. His emphasis of that out-of-context quote strongly signals that he would allow the teaching of creationism in public schools, because he views creationism as a “scientific theory.”
Needless to say, creationism is pure religious mythology, not a scientific theory. The Supreme Court has said this clearly, but Ashe apparently intends to ignore Supreme Court holdings that do not advance his personal religious views if given the opportunity as a federal judge.
Several of Trump’s judicial appointees have been so unfit to serve that they were withdrawn. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee today to urge them to add Barry Ashe to this group by rejecting his appointment to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
HB 839 is a one-page bill that would “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.”
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 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.”
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 in which 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 that this law does nothing to change.
In short, there is no doubt that HB 839 is 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.
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?”
This bill would create a legal loophole for anyone who wishes to discriminate in the name of religion, allowing individuals and corporations to ignore laws everyone else must follow if they claim it would “burden” their religion. The bar for what constitutes a burden on religion has been set very low. The Supreme Court relied on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when ruling in 2014 that the Hobby Lobby corporation’s so-called “free exercise of religion” was “significantly burdened” by the Obamacare provision requiring medical insurance to include contraceptive coverage. Additional legal challenges make it clear that there’s no “burden” too small to trigger a religious objection (including having to complete the incredibly brief EBSA 700 form to notify the IRS of a religious objection to contraception).
Iowa’s proposed bill would tie the state’s hands by nullifying any neutral, generally applicable law that conflicts with a person’s or corporation’s religious beliefs — unless that law is “the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.” This is an extremely high bar for a law to meet, especially as religious groups increasingly use the cry of “religious persecution” to further their political agendas.
SF 2154 would not only allow the religious to use their beliefs as a sword to strike down generally applicable laws, it would also be bad for business. In 2014, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a similar Religious Freedom Restoration Act bill after high profile protests from citizens and corporations opposed to discrimination, including the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee and Apple.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act laws have proved to be bad for business, women, LGBT rights, and true religious liberty. There are 21 states with these laws in place. Iowa should stick to the commonsensical rule that everyone is required to follow the law, regardless of their personal objections. Please take action today to fight SF 2154.
H.F. 2031 purports to teach the bible in a neutral way, to “provide students with knowledge of biblical content, character, poetry, and narratives.” However, there is substantial reason to doubt that this bill would lead to religiously neutral high school biblical classes.
Three biblical scholars at three different public Iowa universities — Dr. Hector Avalos (Iowa State), Dr. Kenneth Atkinson (University of Northern Iowa) and Dr. Robert R. Cargill (University of Iowa) — have sent a letter to the House Education Committee explaining multiple problems with H.F. 2031. These are Ph.D. academics who have dedicated their careers to objectively teaching the bible in public schools.
As their letter points out, H.F. 2031 “opens the door for teachers, most of whom have little or no training in academic biblical studies, to impose their personal religious opinions about the bible upon students.” Many high school teachers will wrongly assume that their interpretation of the bible is universally accepted and uncontroversial.
In fact, biblical interpretation has fluctuated wildly over time, typically catching up to society’s moral standards decades or centuries behind schedule. High school history teachers are ill-equipped to see past their own Sunday school education to present a truly neutral, objective biblical history.
In fact, the bill’s supporters have indicated that a revisionist, ahistorical version of biblical studies is precisely what they have in mind. State Sen. Brad Zaun says, “Today, we are raising generations of children ignorant of the origin of core American values that should unite us, such as the historically radical, but biblically inspired ideal that all people have inherent worth and equality and are ‘endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.’”
It is absurd to suggest that the bible, which condones genocide and slavery, deserves credit for American ideals of inherent human worth and equality. As the biblical scholars opposing this bill underline, “Biblical authors and Christians throughout history have held widely divergent opinions on what any ‘inherent worth’ or ‘equality’ meant. Historically, the Bible has been used to support slavery as well as abolition. Some biblical authors supported genocide and the destruction of other religions, while others supported inclusivity and peace.” Iowa legislators have no intent to provide this objective history to public school students.
The biblical scholars also emphasize that “this bill does not even define what bible will be taught in the public classrooms. Will this bill teach the Catholic Bible, with its books like 1 Maccabees and Sirach? Or, will it teach the Protestant Christian Bible that does not teach these books to be part of the Christian canon? The mere question of which Christian bible will be taught in public classrooms necessarily requires sectarian theological judgments be made before we even read a single word.”
Finally, this law would be ripe for abuse even if the above problems were fixed. Some public school teachers will unquestionably view a bible class as a green light to deliberately present their personal religious beliefs as fact to vulnerable students. This will likely lead to a losing lawsuit for a school district, which could cost schools hundreds of thousands of dollars.
FFRF has successfully stopped other illegal bible classes, including a recent court case stopping long-standing bible class in Mercer County in West Virginia, a class in Mustang, Okla. in 2014, and in Dayton, Tenn., in 2006.
The program created by SB 193 would be administered by private “scholarship organizations.” In other states, this has led to abuse due to an additional level of bureaucrats — those running scholarship organizations — who are entitled to keep 5 percent of all the public school taxpayer dollars they move.
SB 193 also contains an unusual provision allowing public funds to be diverted not only to private schools, but also to “tutors” and “online learning programs.” This presents another obvious risk of abuse. Anyone claiming to be a tutor, and any website advertising a “learning program,” would be eligible to receive taxpayer funds with virtually no accountability. In other states, new private school funding programs have been rife with fraud and abuse. For instance, taxpayers in Florida and Wisconsin have lost millions to fraud when money was given to unaccountable private educational institutions. Once fraud is discovered, it is often too late to recover the money.
If parents don’t use the full balance of their scholarship, those funds still don’t go to public schools. Instead, SB 193 allows parents to transfer account funds to their Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, which receive tax-advantaged treatment. Parents are allowed to put taxpayer funds into their private account, and then could use the balance to pay for expenses that are not allowed under this proposed voucher program.
Persuading even one committee member that this bill should die could make all the difference. Many legislators have been skeptical of this bill so far. It passed the senate by a narrow margin, with only 14 senators voting in favor of the bill, passed the House Education Committee by a vote of 10–9, and passed a preliminary House vote, while acknowledging that the bill was not yet ready to pass as written, by only 22 votes (184–162).
This is a perfect opportunity for activists to defend public schools and to stop the government from funding religion with taxpayer dollars.
This Thursday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is expected to destroy current net neutrality protections. If this happens, internet service providers (ISP) will be allowed to favor some websites, or other internet services, over others. This would allow your provider to censor unpopular speech by slowing your connection speed to websites it does not favor.
Freethought websites, such as ffrf.org, face a high risk of censorship. Besides internet service providers that might deliberately advance a religious message, providers also might hold bandwidth ransom, slowing connection speeds to a trickle if a site doesn’t pay a higher rate or fee. While megachurches and other large religious organizations could afford such a cost, secular organizations such as FFRF likely could not.
The growth of American freethought and explosion of the nonreligious population over the last two decades is tied to the free flow of information and open access to facts that undercut religious myths and religious privilege. Secularism depends on the internet to continue its inexorable growth.
In short, defending net neutrality defends freethought. Please ask your senators and your representative to urge Chairman Pai to reverse course and leave current net neutrality protections in place.
Section 211 of H.R. 4460 slips language from a failed bill earlier this year, which FFRF helped to fight, into a new, larger FEMA bill. Section 211 would violate the rights of conscience and religious freedom rights of all citizens, which, to quote Thomas Jefferson, is “sinful and tyrannical.”
The coercive taxing power of the government can't oblige Muslims to bankroll temples and yeshivas, compel Jews to subsidize churches and Catholic schools or force Christians to fund mosques and madrassas. The idea is simple: Let the faithful voluntarily support their faith.
The founders wisely chose to cut off all public funding for the construction and repair of churches. This history seems distant today, but the rule was bred of millennia of oppression by religion blended with government. Thanks to the separation of state and church, we are free of that oppression. As a result, Americans have a certain amount of complacency and fail to understand that these provisions actually protect and foster religious freedom.
H.R. 4460 is long — your representative may be focused on other parts of it. Please take action today to protect our religious freedom by directing your representatives’ attention to Section 211 of H.R. 4460. Urge him or her to oppose Section 211 so that taxpayers will not be forced to pay for the benefit of a few churches.
Reason’s Greetings!
Learn more about the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest freethought (atheist, agnostic) association in North America, founded nationally in 1978. With more than 30,000 members, FFRF, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, works as an effective state/church watchdog and voice for freethought.
FFRF's legal department of nine attorneys annually ends hundreds of First Amendment violations in our public schools and entanglements between religion and government. Read our 2017 Year in Review.
A trial membership includes 3 free issues of FFRF's lively, 24-page newspaper, Freethought Today.
Read more about the “real reason for the season” — the natural holiday, the Winter Solstice, the shortest, darkest day of the year heralding the rebirth of the Sun and the natural New Year. Peruse FFRF’s appealing and diverse array of secular, freethinking Winter Solstice greeting cards. Or shop for gifts — whether books, T-shirts, magnets or lapel pins — for that discerning freethinker on your list at FFRF’s shop.
Imagine a world in which reason, not religion, prevailed in our government and social policy. Won't you join us today in working for that goal?
The purpose of No Aid Clauses is to ensure religious freedom. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, explained it well: “Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man,” not the taxing power of the state.
Similar constitutional provisions have been under attack around the country, in an attempt to funnel taxpayer money into the coffers of churches and private religious schools. Opponents of No Aid Clauses often argue that they are anti-Catholic, a mistaken argument that FFRF debunked in detailed written testimony to the Declaration of Rights Committee. In fact, states defended the “No Aid” principle long before the surge of anti-Catholic sentiment.
For example, New York City first attempted to create these nonsectarian or “common” schools in 1805. The nonsectarian schools, run by the Free School Society, would not be considered sufficiently nonsectarian by today’s (more evolved) standards. But the more important aspect of this period is that those nonsectarian schools were favored, on religious liberty grounds, over “sectarian” schools—including sectarian schools that were Protestant. Florida courts have recognized that “nothing in the history or text of the Florida no-aid provision suggests animus towards religion.”
The principle underlying No Aid Clauses dates to America’s founding and was uniformly accepted after years of experience. The early history of state-church separation in our federal government is clear to the Supreme Court: “for the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the ‘establishment’ of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” State legislatures, one by one, repudiated laws that would raise public funds and direct them toward houses of worship. This was a core foundational principle to protect religious liberty, but its importance has been largely forgotten.
Given the recent assault on No Aid Clauses, it is crucial to make the Constitution Revision Commission understand that many Floridians value state/church separation and do not want this important protection removed. Please urge the Commission’s Declaration of Rights Committee to vote against Prop 4 during the public comment portion of their hearing next Wednesday, Nov. 29.
Will you join FFRF in our work to promote freethought and protect the wall between state and church? This #GivingTuesday, you have an amazing opportunity to double your contribution to FFRF! The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will match the first $2 million donated via Facebook (starting at 8 a.m. Eastern Time). Get ready . . . make a fundraiser for FFRF on your Facebook now, then set your alarm!
Click here to learn how to make a fundraiser and support FFRF tomorrow, on #Giving Tuesday: http://bit.ly/2zY7RbF
This is a draft of Dan Barker’s proposed secular invocation to be delivered before the U.S. House of Representatives.
Celebrating the wondrous fact that the sovereign authority of our great nation is not a monarch, lord, supreme master or any power higher than "We, the people of these United States," and recognizing that we Americans, a proudly rebellious people, fought a Revolutionary War to shatter the bonds of tyranny, let us rejoice in the inalienable liberty of conscience our forefathers and foremothers risked their lives to establish and our country continues to defend against those enemies who despise freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.
An invocation is a time when we invoke the assistance and guidance of someone outside of ourselves. In the United States, our "higher power" is the authority the electorate has provisionally bestowed upon the guidance of our representatives, who work not for a king or dictator, but for the public good.
Representing tens of millions of good Americans who are not religious and millions of patriotic citizens who do not believe in a god, I cannot invoke a spirit or supernatural agency before this esteemed body.
But I can invoke the "spirit" of the founding patriot Thomas Paine, a nonChristian deist who argued for Common Sense over dogma.
I can invoke the "spirit" of Thomas Jefferson, another nonChristian deist, who stated that our Constitution "erects a wall of separation between church and state" creating the first nation in history to dissolve the formal bonds between religion and government.
I can invoke the "spirit" of James Madison, who stated that "being under the direction of reason and conviction only, not of violence or compulsion, all men are entitled to the full and free exercise of [religion], according to the dictates of conscience."
I can invoke the courage of revolutionary leaders who strove to create a nation where the pursuit of human happiness is unhampered by imposed tradition or coerced doctrine, declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
I can invoke the bravery and compassion of Ernestine L. Rose, the first canvasser for women's rights in America who was denied the opportunity to speak before Congress simply because she did not believe in God.
I can invoke the tenacity and empathy of the atheist Elizabeth Cady Stanton who battled for fifty years for women's rights and who, with her agnostic friend Susan B. Anthony, wrote the Nineteenth Amendment that now affirms the once-radical principle that all citizens can participate in their own democracy. Their close friend, the abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, "I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."
But mainly, today, I invoke you, our chosen representatives, who know that laws should be based on fairness, not ancient codes. That policy should be based on reason, not privilege. That ethics should be aimed at wellbeing, to reduce real violence in the real world, not to appease a deity or flatter a lord. I invoke the "higher power" of your wisdom to solve natural problems in the natural world, the only world we have.
When it comes to government, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong in matters of religion. We are all free to think for ourselves. As the great nineteenth-century agnostic orator Robert Green Ingersoll said, let's agree to take it "one world at a time."
Sen. Lankford is co-chair of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, so he’s not going to be persuaded by arguments that would sway you or me. We need to give him a persuasive reason to stop trying to repeal the Johnson Amendment.
We need you to please let Sen. Lankford know that repealing the Johnson Amendment will hinder religious freedom and lead to government regulation of churches.
As part of their public trust, 501(c)(3)s file financial information with the IRS. Every penny donated and spent is tracked in the Form-990. But churches file nothing. They are financial black holes. Without the Johnson Amendment, any mega-donor could write a check to the nearest church for any amount, earmark the donation for politicking, and take the tax write-off. Churches would become super-PACs. Unregulated, unaccountable, opaque super-PACs. We might even see PACs reorganizing as churches to compete for donors who will give their donation, now tax-deductible, to churches.
Churches cannot operate as unregulated super-PACs if our democracy is to survive, so without the Johnson Amendment the government will be forced to regulate churches. Financial disclosures, donor disclosures (including even regular parishioners and tithe-givers), IRS filings, FEC filings, licensure — the regulatory list for churches will be long and onerous. This will actually endanger religious freedom, whereas now churches enjoy virtually no government oversight.
Learn more about the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest freethought (atheist, agnostic) association in North America, founded nationally in 1978. With more than 30,000 members, FFRF, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, works as an effective state/church watchdog and voice for freethought.
FFRF's legal department of nine attorneys annually ends hundreds of First Amendment violations in our public schools and entanglements between religion and government. Read our 2017 Year in Review.
A trial membership includes 3 free issues of FFRF's lively, 24-page newspaper, Freethought Today.
If you’re an unabashed nontheist, you can make your own digital billboard, perfect to post, tweet, use as your Facebok or Twitter image or even as your Facebook or Twitter banner (FFRF’s app resizes it for you). You can choose your own nontheistic “appellation.” FFRF also offers the slogan as a bumper sticker, sweatshop-free T-shirt or lapel pin.
Imagine a world in which reason, not religion, prevailed in our government and social policy. Won't you join us today in working for that goal?
Learn more about the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest freethought (atheist, agnostic) association in North America, founded nationally in 1978. With more than 29,000 members, FFRF, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, works as an effective state/church watchdog and voice for freethought.
FFRF's legal department of nine attorneys annually ends hundreds of First Amendment violations in our public schools and entanglements between religion and government.
In the past two years alone, FFRF has won 14 lawsuits, legal settlements or rounds of litigation.
Imagine a world in which reason, not religion, prevailed in our government and social policy. Won't you join us today in working for that goal?