Last month it was reported in Freethought Today that Michael Newdow had filed a lawsuit in Ohio to get "In God We Trust" off U.S. currency.

Newdow, a California attorney and physician, also filed a complaint on Dec. 15, 2015, in the District of Minnesota, with seven FFRF members as part of the group of 29 plaintiffs.
In 2013, Newdow, along with FFRF, sued the U.S. Treasury over the printing of "In God We Trust" on currency. That lawsuit was dismissed by New York Judge Harold Baer and upheld on appeal.

As with the Ohio suit filed in January, Newdow has based his new complaints on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rather than on the First Amendment protection from the governmental establishment of religion, as he did in 2013.

FFRF members Gary Berger, Marie Castle, Charles Christopher, Betty and Thomas Grogan, Roger Kaye and Eric Wells have joined 22 others in the suit.

Newdow's current complaint, which is 115 pages in length, makes the claim that the presence of the motto on coins and paper money offers an unfair advantage to Christians.
In 2004, Newdow sued to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. That case made it to the Supreme Court, although it ruled that he did not have standing to sue.

After hearing from a local resident, FFRF is asking for an Illinois school district to lift its ban on satanic material.

The Rich Township High School District for several years has imposed a prohibition on satanic symbols, literature and activities in the district's handbook. Its reasoning is that Satanism is not protected by the First Amendment and that even if it were, the belief system's harmful concepts would severely disrupt the school environment.

But the First Amendment applies to Satanism, too. In a 1981 ruling (Thomas v. Review Board), the U.S. Supreme Court said that "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." This certainly pertains to Satanism.

And the tenets of Satanism do not justify discriminatory treatment. It can be argued that almost all religions promote hatred and bloodshed. By many measures, Satanism is less susceptible to this criticism than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

The Old Testament, holy to both Judaism and Christianity, is replete with violence.

"Of course, adherents of these religions often try to explain these verses away, perhaps arguing that they are metaphorical or only apply in unique circumstances," says FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne. "If this ad hoc reasoning is sufficient to forgive these passages, the same leniency must be granted to the texts of Satanism and other minority religions. Compared to the texts of more popular religions, the tenets of Satanism are reasonable and benign."

After hearing from a local resident, FFRF is asking for an Illinois school district to lift its ban on satanic material.

The Rich Township High School District for several years has imposed a prohibition on satanic symbols, literature and activities in the district's handbook. Its reasoning is that Satanism is not protected by the First Amendment and that even if it were, the belief system's harmful concepts would severely disrupt the school environment.

But the First Amendment applies to Satanism, too. In a 1981 ruling (Thomas v. Review Board), the U.S. Supreme Court said that "religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection." This certainly pertains to Satanism.

And the tenets of Satanism do not justify discriminatory treatment. It can be argued that almost all religions promote hatred and bloodshed. By many measures, Satanism is less susceptible to this criticism than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

The Old Testament, holy to both Judaism and Christianity, is replete with violence.

"Of course, adherents of these religions often try to explain these verses away, perhaps arguing that they are metaphorical or only apply in unique circumstances," says FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne. "If this ad hoc reasoning is sufficient to forgive these passages, the same leniency must be granted to the texts of Satanism and other minority religions. Compared to the texts of more popular religions, the tenets of Satanism are reasonable and benign."

When a new fitness trail was inaugurated at Cooper Elementary School in Bella Vista, Ark., the ceremony included prayers and the sprinkling of "holy water" while students and staff members looked on.

Staff members, including the school's principal and vice principal, were in attendance, as were the school district's assistant superintendent and a board member. A representative from Mercy Health, a co-sponsor of the trail, led the crowd in prayer. He asked everyone, including the students, to raise their hands to ask for God's blessing for the new trail. The adults, including the school officials, participated. Then, the nun sprinkled holy water over the site.

"It is unlawful for any school-sponsored event to include religious activities," says Patrick Elliot in his Feb. 23 letter, prompted by a concerned local parent, to lawyers for Bentonville Public Schools. "Even when outside the typical school environment, the Supreme Court has found prayers taking place at school-sponsored events unconstitutional."

By including prayers at school-sponsored events, Bentonville Public Schools abandons its duty to remain neutral toward religion and alienates the approximately 30 percent of the U.S. population that is not Christian, Elliot adds.

FFRF has asked Bentonville Public Schools to make certain that such religiosity is not repeated at future school events and that school officials inform it in writing of steps taken to ensure this.

An unnecessary bill to carve out a special right for churches has been approved by the Wisconsin Legislature.

It prohibits any local government "from enacting or enforcing an ordinance, related to fire safety that prohibits the seasonal placement of a Christmas tree in the rotunda of the state Capitol building or in a church." It also creates a "presumption" for fire safety inspections that such a tree "is not a fire hazard."

It's a bad idea to create precedent that privileges churches or otherwise decrees that content-neutral laws do not apply to religious people or organizations.

That's what got us the disastrous Hobby Lobby decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, giving corporate employers who invoke personal religious beliefs veto power over what forms of contraception their women employees may choose. That's what brought us in Indiana the state-level version of the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" to allow discrimination against gays.

Now that the tree-exemption bill has passed, what's next in Wisconsin? A law to exempt church-run day cares or schools from basic safety standards? That's a real possibility. There are a handful of states, mostly Southern, which endanger children's lives by excluding church ministries from licensing requirements. Already, Wisconsin is among the states that shamefully exempt religious parents from prosecution for failure to seek medical care for sick or dying children.

There's no secular purpose for excluding churches from safety requirements the rest of us have to obey. If the law is a good law, it should apply to all; if it's a bad law, then everyone should be free of it, not just churches.

FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover testified against the bill on March 2.

Superintendent pulls back on Twitter

The superintendent of Dalton Local Schools in Ohio will no longer post religious messages on his official school Twitter feed, after FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne wrote the school district's attorney a letter on Jan. 25, 2016. The tweets called for prayer, encouraged belief in God, and promoted Christian church events. "Anyone viewing this school-sponsored Twitter feed would understand that the superintendent is endorsing his personal religion over all others," said Jayne.

Attorney Susan C. Hastings responded on Feb. 2 informing FFRF that the superintendent would establish a separate Twitter account for personal communications.

No religion for Adopt-a-Cops

The Johnson City Police Department in Tennessee is taking steps to ensure it is abiding by the Constitution regarding its "Adopt-a-Cop" program.

FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel sent a letter on Dec. 8 objecting to the program, in which community members "adopt" a police officer, and includes praying for the officer every day.

In a Feb. 2 response, an attorney for the department acknowledged that the department could have done more "to dispel the public's perception that the department itself was operating and 'pushing' this program," and assured FFRF that the department recognized its obligation to separate church and state.

Library open during Dalai Lama event

The public library system in Madison, Wis. decided in February not to close its central downtown branch for a March private event for the Dalai Lama. FFRF, whose office is located across the street from the library, was one of the community voices objecting to the planned event.

"We write to express concerns that granting this proposal would raise the appearance of government-religion entanglement, and also would be a disservice to the local community," said FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne in a letter to the library's board of directors.
The board unanimously voted the proposal down on Feb. 4.

FFRF again gets rid of 'Jesus is My Hero' shirts

FFRF has again ensured that staff at Akron Public Schools in Ohio will not be permitted to wear "Jesus Is My Hero" T-shirts in school. FFRF first dealt with the shirts in 2013, which promoted the Buchtel Community Learning Center's athletic program.

The district notified all staff in October of 2013 that wearing the donated shirts was a violation of policy. "Unfortunately," said Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert in a letter to the district's attorney, "I'm writing again because our complainant informs us that these T-shirts have made appearances once again, worn by coaches at football practices."

On Feb. 9, the district's attorney told Markert that the district's athletic director and the school principal were notified, and told staff "that, while acting in their official capacity as school officials, they are prohibited from engaging in actions that could be seen as an endorsement of religion, in violation of board policy."

FFRF wins two battles in California district

In California, Lake Elsinore Unified School District's "Student of the Month" luncheons with the local Chamber of Commerce will no longer be religious events, and a praying coach has been taken to task.

The monthly lunches that honored students for their academic achievements took place on school property and were attended by school staff and government officials. They also typically included a Christian prayer, and, one year, Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ was given to the honorees.

Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel wrote to the school district on July 23, 2015, asking the district to "discontinue prayer and the distribution of religious literature at future school-sponsored activities."

The district replied on Aug. 20, claiming that the Student of the Month events were not sponsored by the district. Seidel rebutted the letter on Sept. 15, pointing out that district employees were "volunteer administrators" and the district was thanked in the programs as a sponsor.

On Feb. 12, the district informed FFRF that changes had been made to the Student of the Month ceremonies. The district is no longer a sponsor, it vowed not to mandate or encourage student participation in prayers, and the chamber agreed to implement a "secular inspirational message" in lieu of prayer.

The district also noted that it had directed the Elsinore High School football coach to refrain from requiring prayer and participating in student prayers.

'In God We Trust' picture taken down

Kettle Falls Middle School in Washington has taken down a picture reading "In God We Trust" over the backdrop of an American flag, after FFRF complained.

FFRF Legal Fellow Madeline Ziegler wrote to the Kettle Falls School District on Nov. 23, 2015. "This posting falsely equates patriotism with piety," she contended. "Young, impressionable students are apt to believe that the school endorses the religious message of the poster."

On Feb. 18, the district superintendent informed FFRF that the picture had been removed.

Grad info session moved from church

The Columbia Borough School District in Columbia, Pa., will not hold events in church any longer.

Last year, Columbia High School required graduating students to attend a graduation practice in a Christian church to receive caps and gowns, as well as information about the ceremony. FFRF Legal Fellow Madeline Ziegler objected to the constitutional violation in a July 22, 2015, letter.

After FFRF followed up with the district twice, an acting superintendent for the district informed FFRF that the previous superintendent had recently resigned, and he had only just seen FFRF's letters. He apologized for the district's lack of response, confirmed that the situation had happened as FFRF described, and stated that he immediately directed the high school principal to cease the practice of distributing important graduation information in a church.

Kansas district drops creationism

The Sylvan-Unified School District 299 in Sylvan Grove, Kan., will no longer permit the teaching of creationism.

A student contacted FFRF to relate that a science teacher at Sylvan-Lucas Junior/Senior High School had long been teaching creationism and presenting her biology students with "evidence" against evolution. The teacher's lesson plans listed "Arguements [sic] against Evolution notes" for two class periods, and she showed a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," which claims that the universe "can only be explained by intelligent design."

"Teaching creationism or any of its offshoots, such as intelligent design, in a public school is unlawful, because creationism is not based in fact. Courts have routinely found that such teachings are religious, despite many new and imaginative labels given to the alternatives," wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel in a Feb. 9 letter to the district superintendent.

On Feb. 22, FFRF received a response from the district. Superintendent Jude Stecklein said the district investigated the situation and informed the teacher that she can no longer teach creationism.

'Appeal to Heaven' flag removed

Shelby County, Ohio, is no longer displaying an Appeal to Heaven flag in a county building after hearing from FFRF.

Members of the Appeal to Heaven movement "honor the Lord by networking elected officials who are believers in Jesus Christ, who regularly attend and display a commitment to an evangelical, Gospel-centered church and who will commit to live and govern based on biblical . . . principles."

"This mission is clearly sectarian, and displaying the flag is a tacit endorsement of evangelical Christianity," wrote FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan Jayne in a letter to the county.
On Feb. 25, the Shelby County Commissioners notified FFRF that the flag had been removed.
Religious mural on wall painted over

The Holy Land Experience, located in Orlando, painted a mural on a retaining wall that turns the corner from Interstate 4 in the direction of the religious amusement park. This interchange and retaining wall are government property that the Florida Department of Transportation maintains, and Holy Land sought no permits or permission to put up the mural.

The mural featured religious imagery, showing two angels unrolling a scroll that signifies humankind. The message conveyed was that God created us all — an inescapably religious notion, says FFRF.

FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel wrote to Florida public officials last November when FFRF was alerted to the mural by its local chapter, the Central Florida Freethought Community.

FFRF has learned that the Holy Land Experience has finally painted over the mural in a neutral tan color.

Ohio bible study groups adhere to law

Faith Memorial Church in Lancaster, Ohio, participated in bible study groups in a number of local public schools. The church listed such groups in eight public schools in its vicinity, including four high schools. Most of the clubs met during the schools' lunch breaks and were run by adults, according to the church's webpage (since taken down).
The courts have clearly decided over the years that public schools cannot advance, prefer or promote religion.

FFRF recently received a response from legal counsel for the four districts where the public schools are located. In its reply, the firm told FFRF that in the future any bible study clubs would conform to the law. "Principals are making sure that students leading bible study clubs are conducting those groups within the parameters of the Equal Access Act," the March 2 letter stated.

Florida charter school gets default notice

FFRF had warned the Duval County School Board in Florida in January that the Seacoast Charter Academy seemed like a thinly disguised religious establishment.

The institution, which was run as part of a private Christian school for almost 20 years, became a kindergarten to fifth-grade charter entity in 2011 for financial reasons.

Also, Seacoast hosted a Veterans Day program inside the academy's auditorium, which features a large Latin cross at center stage and lots of religious iconography. It is also used for Seacoast's chapel services, so it serves the same role as a church.

"We're pleased the school district investigated and issued the default," said FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel. "Both the district and FFRF will continue to monitor these schools."

FFRF was able to get three school districts around the country to end the illegal practice of allowing bibles to be distributed to students.

• • •

At the Cleveland County School District in Rison, Ark., the district superintendent confirmed to FFRF that the Gideons would no longer distribute bibles to students in classrooms at Rison Elementary School, and that the Gideon representatives would no longer be allowed to speak with students about their mission.

"Courts have uniformly held that the distribution of bibles to students at school is prohibited because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Patrick Elliott. "When a school distributes religious literature to its students, or permits evangelists to do so, it entangles itself with a religious message."

• • •

After receiving a complaint from FFRF, the River View Local School District in Warsaw, Ohio, also will no longer permit the Gideons to distribute bibles.

Students were reportedly separated into groups who wanted and did not want to receive bibles. The children who elected not to take one were instructed to wait in a separate line until the Gideons were finished distributing bibles to other students.

"Public schools have a constitutional obligation to remain neutral toward religion and to protect the rights of conscience of young and impressionable students," wrote Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert in a letter originally sent June 5, 2015.

The district finally informed FFRF on Feb. 8 that it would not permit the distribution of bibles on school property.

• • •

And at West Orange-Stark Elementary School in Orange, Texas, FFRF got involved when it had heard from parents that bibles were being handed out to students.

"There is no excuse or justification for this practice. It is unnecessary, offensive and illegal," FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover wrote in a Jan. 6 letter to West Orange-Cove School District Superintendent Rickie Harris.

In a response dated Feb. 1, lawyers for the school district said that they had counseled the school about the rules governing such issues. "We anticipate no further issues in the future," the legal firm stated.

In the past month or so, FFRF was able to get many public school officials and coaches and other public entities to end their use of illegal prayer.

Seniors spared from prayers

Seniors at the Easton Area Lifestyle Campus in Easton, Pa., will no longer be subjected to prayers by center staff. Previously, staff recited prayers, asked people to join in an "amen" chorus accompanied by piano, and sung Christian hymns.

"Federal regulations prohibit senior centers receiving federal funding to engage in religious activities at government-sponsored functions such as senior lunches," wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel on Jan. 12 in a letter to the center.

On Jan. 29, FFRF received a response from the Northampton County Department of Human Services, noting that it had distributed a policy memo to the county's senior centers. The memo said that "all senior centers operated by the county of Northampton, or funded even partially by funds from the [Area Agency on Aging] are, effective immediately, precluded from offering prayers."

School officials to be neutral

The Morgan County Schools in Alabama have reminded a coach and a band director to keep state and church separate after FFRF stepped in with a written complaint.

A Danville High School student informed FFRF that, after the end of football games, the team's coaches gathered the players together at the center of the field and led both teams in a Christian prayer. In addition, the drum major, on the instruction of the band director, led prayers at the halftime of each game and at practices.

"It is, of course, unconstitutional for public school athletic coaches or band directors to lead students in prayer, participate in student-led prayer, or instruct students to lead prayers," wrote FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover in a letter to the district.

An attorney for the school district informed Grover by email on Feb. 8 that the coaches and band director had "been told of their obligations to remain neutral, including that they should not organize or direct students in prayer."

Graduation prayers ended

The La Mesa-Spring Valley School District will no longer include prayers at graduation ceremonies.

FFRF objected to the practice in a Jan. 14 letter. "The Supreme Court has continually struck down prayers at school-sponsored events, including public school graduations," Staff Attorney Andrew Seidel wrote to the district.

On Feb. 10, the district said that "steps have been taken to ensure that prayers or prayer-like speeches are not held at school-sponsored activities in the future."

Invocations to be nonsectarian

The Plano Independent School District Board of Trustees has dropped Christian invocations from its meetings in favor of "nonsectarian inspirational messages" after hearing from FFRF.

FFRF Staff Attorney Sam Grover first wrote on Dec. 7, 2015, informing the board, "It is beyond the scope of a public school board to schedule or conduct prayer as part of its meetings."

When an attorney for the school district replied that the district did not intend to change its practices, Grover sent a rebuttal letter on Jan. 22. He pointed out that several courts have held that prayers at school board meetings differ from the legislative prayers that the U.S. Supreme Court has approved of, and that even in the legislative context, legislators themselves are not permitted to lead the prayers as the trustees were doing here.

In a Feb. 26 response, the Plano Board of Trustees attorney maintained his disagreement, but wrote, "Notwithstanding our disagreement, going forward the Plano ISD School Board intends on opening its meetings with nonsectarian inspirational messages delivered by board members."

Coach won't organize prayers

A Michigan public school softball coach will no longer lead team members in prayer.

In May 2015, FFRF sent a letter to North Branch Area Schools Superintendent Thomas English alerting him that high school softball coach Willie Deshetsky was leading his team members in prayer. FFRF sent English photos of Deshetsky's team prayerfully holding hands with him.

"It is illegal for public school athletic coaches to lead their team in prayer," FFRF Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert wrote.

FFRF finally received a response in February informing the organization that the coach had been asked to desist.

"Coach Willie Deshetsky was officially informed he cannot organize, advocate or lead the softball team in prayer," North Branch Athletic Director James Fish said in his reply.

Coach-led prayers to stop in Illinois

FFRF has been able to get three Illinois public schools districts to stop coaches from leading prayers at school competitions.

The organization had written to Altamont Community Unit School District #10, Pana Community Unit School District #8 and Dieterich School District asking them to cease the practice.

While not acknowledging any wrongdoing, the three school districts responded by stating that they'll make certain this won't happen in the future. The Dieterich School District also sent FFRF a copy of a memo that Superintendent Cary Jackson circulated among all district employees emphasizing the district's need to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.
"We, as a school district, absolutely have a respect for religion, but by federal law, cannot endorse it," the memo reads. "Therefore, when our students choose to participate or initiate a student-led prayer, our employees may not participate in any way."

Kentucky coach to stop prayers

FFRF recently got a Kentucky school district to stop a public high school football coach from leading his team in prayer.

Last September, FFRF had sent a letter to the Bowling Green City Schools asking that Coach Kevin Wallace cease from having his team worship before games. The complaint included a photo of Wallace with his students in a prayer circle, as well as his quote in the local paper acknowledging that he was engaged in the practice.

In a follow-up letter last month, FFRF Staff Attorney Rebecca Markert expressed concern that the school district had failed to take any action.

Finally, FFRF received a response in March from Bowling Green Independent Schools Superintendent Gary Fields acknowledging the receipt of the two letters. "I have addressed the concerns contained in your letters and consider the matter to be resolved," Fields replied.

By PJ Slinger

On Feb. 13, when conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, it shook up the makeup of the court and created what is turning into a contentious fight to find his successor.

Over the years, FFRF took issue with many of Scalia's decisions and proclamations, whether they were with the majority opinion or not. FFRF Co-Presidents Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, along with FFRF co-founder Anne Nicol Gaylor, even protested Scalia's appearance during a stop at the University of Wisconsin Law School in 2001.

The following quotes from Scalia during his tenure on the bench reveal his feelings about state/church separation issues and other religion-based topics.

On religious displays on government property

"I find it a sufficient embarrassment that our Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding holiday displays has come to require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with the judiciary. But interior decorating is a rock hard science compared to psychology practiced by amateurs." — Dissent in Lee v. Weisman (1992)
On religious faith in public life

"Have the courage to have your wisdom regarded as stupidity. Be fools for Christ. And have the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world." — speech to Knights of Columbus Baton Rouge Council 969, (Jan. 29, 2005)

On the Establishment Clause

"The Founding Fathers would be astonished to find that the Establishment Clause — which they designed to ensure that no one powerful sect or combination of sects could use political or governmental power to punish dissenters — has been employed to prohibit the characteristically and admirably American accommodation of the religious practices (or more precisely, cultural peculiarities) of a tiny minority sect. I, however, am not surprised. Once this court has abandoned text and history as guides, nothing prevents it from calling religious toleration the establishment of religion." — Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet (1994)

On the morality of the death penalty

It seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its firmest hold in post-Christian Europe, and has least support in the church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that, for the believing Christian, death is no big deal. Intentionally killing an innocent person is a big deal: It is a grave sin, which causes one to lose his soul. But losing this life in exchange for the next? The Christian attitude is reflected in the words Robert Bolt's play has Thomas More saying to the headsman: 'Friend, be not afraid of your office. You send me to God.' For the nonbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence." — God's Justice and Ours, 123 First Things (May 2002)
On belief in the devil

"You're looking at me as though I'm weird. My God! Are you so out of touch with most of America, most of which believes in the devil? I mean, Jesus Christ believed in the devil! It's in the gospels! You travel in circles that are so, so removed from mainstream America that you are appalled that anybody would believe in the devil! Most of mankind has believed in the devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the devil. — Jennifer Senior, "In Conversation: Antonin Scalia," New York
(Oct. 6, 2013)

On religious (and nonreligious) neutrality

"To tell you the truth, there is no place for that [religious neutrality] in our constitutional tradition. To be sure, you can't favor one denomination over another, but you can't favor religion over nonreligion? . . . I think one of the reasons God has been good to us is that we have done him honor. Unlike the other countries of the world that do no even invoke his name, we do him honor." — speaking to students at a Louisiana Catholic high school (Jan. 2, 2016)

On the Pledge of Allegiance

"We do him [God] honor in our Pledge of Allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. There's nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don't let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution." — speaking to students at Colorado Christian University (Oct. 1, 2014)

On prayer at graduation ceremonies

"To deprive our society of that important unifying mechanism in order to spare the nonbeliever what seems to me the minimal inconvenience of standing or even sitting in respectful nonparticipation is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported in law." — Lee v. Weisman (1992)

On the Lemon test, which requires laws to have a secular purpose

"Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed test but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him. — Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)

Read Annie Laurie Gaylor's blog, "Why Scalia was a 'fugitive from justice' " at Patheos.com.

This op-ed appeared in The New Yorker on Feb. 19, 2016, and is reprinted with permission.

By Lawrence Krauss

Who should replace Antonin Scalia? On Feb. 15, The New York Times reported that the justice himself had weighed in on the question: Last June, in his dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia wrote that the court was "strikingly unrepresentative" of America as a whole and ought to be diversified. He pointed out that four of the justices are natives of New York City, that none are from the Southwest (or are "genuine" Westerners), and that all of them attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Moreover, Scalia wrote, there is "not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination" on the court. (All nine justices are, to varying degrees, Catholic or Jewish.)

Scalia's remarks imply that an evangelical Christian should be appointed to the court. That's a strange idea: Surely, the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution strongly suggests that court decisions shouldn't be based on religious preference, or even on religious arguments. The Ten Commandments are reserved for houses of worship; the laws of the land are, or should be, secular. Still, I'm inclined, in my own way, to agree with Scalia's idea about diversity. My suggestion is that the next Supreme Court justice be a declared atheist.

Atheists are a significantly underrepresented minority in government. According to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, about 23% of American adults declare that they have no religious affiliation — which is two percentage points more than the number who declare themselves Catholic. At least 3% of Americans say that they are atheists — which means that there are more atheists than Jews in the United States. An additional 4% declare themselves agnostic; as George Smith noted in his classic book Atheism: The Case Against God, agnostics are, for practical purposes, atheists, since they cannot declare that they believe in a divine creator. Even so, not a single candidate for major political office or Supreme Court justice has "come out" declaring his or her non-belief.

From a judicial perspective, an atheist justice would be an asset. In controversial cases about same-sex marriage, say, or access to abortion or birth control, he or she would be less likely to get mired in religion-based moral quandaries. Scalia himself often got sidetracked in this way: He framed his objections to laws protecting LGBT rights in a moral, rather than a legal-rights, framework. In his dissent in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas — a case that challenged a Texas law criminalizing gay sex — Scalia wrote that those who wanted to limit the rights of gay people to be teachers or scoutmasters were merely "protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle they believe to be immoral and destructive." To him, religion-based moral objections seemed to deserve more weight than either factual considerations (homosexuality is not destructive) or rights-based concerns (gay people's rights must be protected). Indeed, Scalia's meditation on the court's lack of religious diversity was part of a larger argument that the court's decision on same-sex marriage did not reflect prevailing religious and moral values. An atheist justice, by contrast, would have different intellectual habits. I suspect that he or she would be more likely to focus on reason and empirical evidence.

In addition, the appointment of an atheist justice would send a meaningful message: it would affirm that legal arguments are secular, and that they are based on a secular document, the Constitution, which was written during the founding of a secular democracy. Such an appointment would also help counter the perceived connection between atheism and lawlessness and immorality. That unfortunate and inaccurate link is made all too often in the United States. A Pew survey conducted in January showed that, once again, Americans would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate than for a candidate who has no experience, is gay, was involved in financial improprieties, has had extramarital affairs, or is Muslim. Atheists are widely, absurdly and openly mistrusted.

That distrust has ancient roots: because religion long ago claimed morality as its domain, atheism has long been connected to immorality. To many people, religiosity confers an aura of goodness. In the U.K., when people who had listed their religious affiliation as Christian on the national census were asked by the Richard Dawkins Foundation why they had done so, most said it was not because they actually accepted the detailed doctrines of their faith, but because it made them feel like they were good people. This is a two-way street on which both directions point the wrong way. By the same token, when good people openly declare that they cannot accept religious doctrines or question the underlying concept of God, they are often classified as "bad."

The prejudice against atheists has real-world consequences. In December 2014, the Times reported that seven states — Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas — still have laws on their books that make atheists ineligible to run for public office. And anti-atheist prejudice is shaping our presidential race, too. Consider the case of Donald Trump in South Carolina. After Trump insulted Ted Cruz using a sexist slur, one voter responded by saying, "The way he speaks — that doesn't sound like somebody who really believes in God that much. You want your children to look up at the president of the United States."

Implicit in that statement is the idea that a politician's belief in God is, in itself, a reason for children to look up to him or her. Meanwhile, other aspects of a candidate's character seem not to matter. If the opinions of Cruz's colleagues in the Senate and elsewhere are any indication, he seems to be rather unlikable; his competitors in the Republican primaries have suggested that he is less than truthful, as well. Still, Cruz captures a significant fraction of the evangelical vote because his character seems to matter less than his open and pronounced invocation of God in discussing his policies.

Our strange attitudes about atheism warp our politics and our laws. It's time to remove the stigma. One way to do that is by appointing an atheist to the Supreme Court. Happily, such an appointment would be a tribute to the spirit, if not the letter, of one of Scalia's last opinions. More than that, it would be a tribute to the secular principles upon which this country was founded.

Lawrence Krauss is an esteemed theoretical physicist and author who will be receiving the Emperor Has No Clothes Award at the 2016 FFRF national convention. See more on the back page.

Name: Marni Huebner-Tiborsky.

Where I live: Richmond Heights, an east suburb of Cleveland, Ohio.

Where and when I was born: Bedford, Ohio, on March 21, 1973.

Family: Mark Tiborsky, 54, atheist spouse and staunch FFRF supporter.

Education: 1990 graduate of Mentor High School, Mentor, Ohio; 1992 graduate of Lakeland Community College with A.A. English major; and 1994 graduate of Lake Erie College with B.A. major in French/Italian.

Occupation: Coordinator, Worldwide Expense Reporting. I work in the finance department for a private equity firm and check almost all expense reports worldwide (U.S., Europe and Asia), making sure tax, internal and external coding and audit rules are followed. I also manage the Travel and Expense Reporting system and handle almost all back office administrative and helpdesk functions, training, etc.

How I got where I am today: Whew, this is a tough one. I think it's a matter of just gaining day-to-day experience, trying new things and just growing up, maturing and learning how to be better and do better, even in the face of adversity and sometimes just bad luck. I'm always learning, especially from my friends and peers. It's not always easy but I keep plugging away day to day!

Where I'm headed: Where I hope I'm headed is eventually running my own business teaching people about green smoothies and making raw vegan fruit desserts in an environmentally friendly store/food truck. I also would like to be a vegan menu planning consultant. On a far different note, I hope to eventually organize/host a freethought convention in Cleveland.

Person in history I admire and why: There are so many! I admire any freethinkers throughout history who have resisted the status quo no matter how frightening it was or how dangerous. Their willingness to put themselves on the front lines to create change is to be applauded. It is critical, especially with current events, that more freethinkers have the courage to come out to friends and family and publicly. The only way to change minds and end discrimination and ignorance is to get out in the open and educate!
A quotation I like: "The only constant is change" ­— Isaac Asimov.

These are a few of my favorite things: A secular, free society, green smoothies, coffee, my cats, being married to another atheist, the greatest friends in the world (you know who you are!), our social meetup group and our wonderful FFRF chapter.

These are not: My cats (yes, they are a blessing and a curse!), bad drivers, willful ignorance, entitlement mentality and tax-exempt churches.

My doubts about religion started: I have been an atheist as long as I can remember. Religion just never made sense to me. I was reared Methodist, but just didn't give it much thought, ever. The whole thing just seemed inane. I went to church and was active, but that was because of community, not religiosity.

Before I die: Wow, there's so many things! I want to visit every national park in an RV, and I want to own a completely modular, mobile tiny house (although I'd have to build another house for the kitties). I want to visit Farm Sanctuary in New York, Big Cat Rescue in Florida, and I want to get my husband to Europe. I would also like to be in New York City once for the Macy's parade and once for New Year's Eve. I'd also like to run a statewide Secular Community Center and own a very successful business.

Ways I promote freethought: In 2007, I founded and now co-organize with my husband a social group on meetup.com called The Cleveland Freethinkers, which has over 1,100 members and has had over 600 in-person meetups. In 2012, I founded the local FFRF chapter, Northern Ohio Freethought Society (NOFS), to be a local separation of state and church watchdog/activist group. Our chapter has already participated in several great community outreach campaigns and events. We are looking to become more involved with Foundation Beyond Belief and Secular Student Alliance. My husband and I are involved with the local chapter of Center for Inquiry and my husband is on the board. We have been peripherally involved with United Coalition of Reason and my husband coordinated the formation of the local Northeast Ohio Coalition of Reason. We are also involved with the local Sunday Assembly (husband's in the band!) and, of course, are heavily involved with FFRF. All of these groups we also promote through Facebook and Twitter and have a separate website for the NOFS chapter.

Susan Jacoby, an honorary director of FFRF, is the author of Strange Gods: A Secular History of Conversion. This op-ed appeared in The New York Times on Feb. 5, 2016, and is reprinted with permission.

By Susan Jacoby

The population of nonreligious Americans — including atheists, agnostics and those who call themselves "nothing in particular" — stands at an all-time high this election year. Americans who say religion is not important in their lives and who do not belong to a religious group, according to the Pew Research Center, have risen in numbers from an estimated 21 million in 2008 to more than 36 million now.

Despite the extraordinary swiftness and magnitude of this shift, our political campaigns are still conducted as if all potential voters were among the faithful. The presumption is that candidates have everything to gain and nothing to lose by continuing their obsequious attitude toward orthodox religion and ignoring the growing population of those who make up a more secular America.

Ted Cruz won in Iowa by expanding Republican voter turnout among the evangelical base. Donald J. Trump placed second after promising "to protect Christians" from enemies foreign and domestic. The third-place finisher Marco Rubio's line "I don't think you can go to church too often" might well have been the campaign mantra. Mr. Rubio was first christened a Roman Catholic, baptized again at the age of 8 into the Mormon Church, and now attends a Southern Baptist megachurch with his wife on Saturdays and Catholic Mass on Sundays.

Democrats are only a trifle more secular in their appeals. Hillary Clinton repeatedly refers to her Methodist upbringing, and even Bernie Sanders — a cultural Jew not known to belong to a synagogue — squirms when asked whether he believes in God. When Jimmy Kimmel posed the question, Mr. Sanders replied in a fog of words at odds with his usual blunt style: "I am who I am. And what I believe in and what my spirituality is about, is that we're all in this together." He once referred to a "belief in God" that requires him to follow the Golden Rule — a quote his supporters seem to trot out whenever someone suggests he's an atheist or agnostic.

Candidates ignore secularists

The question is not why nonreligious Americans vote for these candidates — there is no one on the ballot who full-throatedly endorses nonreligious humanism — but why candidates themselves ignore the growing group of secular voters.

Yes, America is still a predominantly Christian nation, but evangelical Christians (including multiple Protestant denominations), at 25.4 percent, are the only group larger than those who don't belong to any church. At 22.8 percent, according to Pew, the unchurched make up a larger group than Catholics, any single Protestant denomination and small minorities of Jews, Muslims and Hindus.

Critics have suggested that there is no such entity as secular America, because the nonreligious do not all share the same values. One might just as easily say the same thing about the religious. President Jimmy Carter, for example, left the Southern Baptist Convention because he disagreed with its views about women — but Mr. Carter remains his own kind of devout and liberal Baptist in the tradition of his 18th-century religious forebears.

Secularists politically weak

Secularists remain politically weak in part because of the reluctance of many, especially the young, to become "joiners." Rejection of labels may be one reason so many of the religiously unaffiliated prefer to check "nothing in particular" rather than the atheist or agnostic box.

But it takes joiners to create a lobby. The American Center for Law and Justice, an organization focused on the rights of Christians, gathered more than a million signatures on a petition protesting the imprisonment of Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American pastor and convert from Islam who was one of four Americans freed in last month's prisoner swap.

For small secular organizations, a million signatures for any cause would constitute a supernatural happening. I spent a few years working for the Center for Inquiry, a humanist think tank that merged last month, in a rare union of secular forces, with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Michael De Dora, the center's public policy director, argues that secularists must work with liberal and mainstream religious groups on issues of mutual concern.

Yet there is some controversy over coalition building between those who consider themselves "hard" and "soft" atheists. I suppose I must be a "soft" atheist for believing that there is a huge political upside to ad hoc coalitions with liberal religious groups.

Freedom of conscience for all — which exists only in secular democracies — should be at the top of the list of shared concerns. Candidates who rightly denounce the persecution of Christians by radical Islamists should be ashamed of themselves for not expressing equal indignation at the persecution of freethinkers and atheists, as well as dissenting Muslims and small religious sects, not only by terrorists but also by theocracies like Saudi Arabia. With liberal religious allies, it would be easier for secularists to hold candidates to account when they talk as if freedom of conscience is a human right only for the religious.

Reclaim the language

Even more critical is the necessity of reclaiming the language of religious freedom from the far right. As defined by many pandering politicians, "religious freedom" is in danger of becoming code for accepting public money while imposing faith-based values on others.

Anyone who dismisses the importance of taking back this language should consider the gravity of the mistake made by supporters of legal abortion when they allowed the anti-abortion movement to claim the term "pro-life" after Roe v. Wade.

Secularists must hold candidates to account when they insult secular values, whether that means challenging them in town hall meetings or withholding donations. Why, for example, would any secular Republican (yes, there are some) think of supporting the many Republican politicians who have denied the scientific validity of evolution? Politicians will continue to ignore secular Americans until they are convinced that there is a price to be paid for doing so.

"God bless America" has become the standard ending of every major political speech. Just once in my life, I would like the chance to vote for a presidential candidate who ends his or her appeals with Thomas Paine's observation that "the most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason."

FFRF hopes to engage the millions of non-religious voters with its new "I'm Secular and I Vote" campaign ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

"Since President Obama was first elected, the number of religiously unaffiliated adults in America has grown by nearly 20 million," said FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "Still, most candidates and media outlets focus their time on traditional religious groups, so we're taking action to be more vocal and coordinated as a demographic that should not be ignored."

A fresh ad campaign featuring John F. Kennedy aired in 21 major television markets during The Late Show with Stephen Colbert for two weeks in March. The commercial depicts the famous lines delivered by presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly on the general populace."

FFRF also plans to reach out to voters through its chapters, paid digital media ads, efforts to mobilize students on college campuses, and coordination with the nation's other major freethought associations as part of the June 4 Reason Rally in Washington, D.C.

A major Pew Research survey recently found 23 percent of the U.S. population is now religiously unaffiliated, with 19 million new adults since 2007 classifying their religious affiliation as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, a trend Pew says is being driven primarily by young adults. A third of Millennials now identify as non-religious.

"Much of the movement away from religion in America is being driven by Millennials, many of whom will be voting for the first time this year," said FFRF Co-President Dan Barker. "We need secular voters to be vocal about their beliefs, or lack thereof, while rejecting efforts to push religious dogma on the nation."

FFRF will be working with its 23,500 members, 20 chapters across America and through secular student alliances to encourage supporters to register to vote, attend and speak out on secularism at political events and submit op-eds to local and campus newspapers. FFRF also launched a student essay contest with thousands of dollars in prizes, and will distribute "I'm Secular and I Vote" buttons, T-shirts, bumper stickers and educational material across the country.

Two more parents have joined a lawsuit challenging an annual nativity performance at Concord High School in Elkhart, Ind.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Indiana filed the original suit on Oct. 7, 2015, along with "Jack Doe," a student and member of the performing arts department, and FFRF member "John Doe," his father.

The new parent plaintiffs are also seeking anonymity to protect their families from the vitriol and open hostility this state/church violation has created. This hostility includes a death threat that was sent to FFRF in December.

The anonymously penned death threat targeted FFRF Staff Attorney and co-counsel Sam Grover and a family that some have speculated is the Doe family.

"I will make it my life's mission to one day (in the next weeks, months or even years) when you think this is all done and forgotten about, to find you and the [redacted family name]," reads the email. "I will cut you into pieces and feed you to the fishes in the Elkhart River (Please note that I will enjoy this)."

The missive ends on this note: "Do yourself a favor, and believe me, when I say: NO ONE WILL STOP ME!"

For several decades, Concord High has performed a "Christmas Spectacular" each winter.

Every performance for the public, of which there were four in 2014, "ends with an approximately 20-minute telling of the story of the birth of Jesus, including a live nativity scene and a scriptural reading from the bible. During this segment, students at the high school portray the Virgin Mary, Joseph, the three wise men, shepherds and angels," notes the original complaint. Attendance and performance at the Christmas Spectacular is mandatory for students enrolled in the performing arts department.

Attorneys for FFRF and the ACLU argue that the nativity performance and the reading of the biblical story of the birth of Jesus are "well-recognized symbols of the Christian faith. Their presence at the Christmas Spectacular is coercive, represents an endorsement of religion by the high school, has no secular purpose, and has the principal purpose and effect of advancing religion."

U.S. District Judge Jon DeGuilio issued a temporary injunction on Dec. 2 barring the school from holding the nativity pageant with student actors.

The updated complaint also challenges the nativity enactment as it was modified during the 2015 Christmas Spectacular, in which the school used mannequins in place of live student performers. FFRF and the ACLU note that this modified nativity scene is no more legal or appropriate than the original show. Both versions exist solely to promote Christianity during a school-sponsored performance in violation of the Constitution.

"We had hoped the school district would simply do the right thing and adopt a neutral stance toward religion as it is required to do under the Constitution," says Staff Attorney Sam Grover.

"We are grateful to the new plaintiffs who have joined and strengthened our case, despite the backlash in the community," says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. "This controversy shows how divisive it is to bring religion into our public schools."

Listen to Grover discuss the case on Freethought Radio during the Feb. 13 episode at ffrf.org/news/radio.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation and two of its members are suing a Texas sheriff over his decision to affix Latin cross decals on county patrol vehicles.

Brewster County Sheriff Ronny Dodson announced in December that he "wanted God's protection over his deputies" in deciding to place the prominent crosses on at least five county law enforcement vehicles.

Local plaintiffs Kevin Price and Jesse Castillo, both atheists and FFRF members, have come in regular contact with the Christian displays numerous times while out driving in the county. They "do not believe in any supernatural beings" and object to "an exclusively Christian religious symbol" being displayed on their county's patrol vehicles, the suit notes.

Both men contend "the Latin crosses convey the divisive message that non-Christians . . . are not equally valued members of the community and that Christians are favored."

When the Brewster County Sheriff's Office Facebook page posted two comments supportive of the Latin crosses, Price criticized the action. His comments were deleted by the sheriff's office and he was blocked from making further comments.

Castillo believes "that the crosses heighten the stigma associated with being an atheist and that he might receive more favorable treatment from the Sheriff's Office by hiding his atheism or by displaying pro-Christian messages," states FFRF's legal complaint.
FFRF seeks appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as nominal damages and attorney's fees.

FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor asserts that no government official has the right to promote his or her personal beliefs on government property.

"Whether it is a cross, a star and crescent, or a pentagram, law enforcement must remain neutral on matters of religion in order to foster public confidence in their impartiality," Gaylor said.

Brewster County, located in the western part of Texas, has a population of less than 10,000.

The federal lawsuit against Dodson was filed in U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Alpine Division, on March 2. To view the full lawsuit online, go to ffrf.org/brewster.

The case is brought on behalf of the plaintiffs by Randall L. Kallinen of Houston, with FFRF Staff Attorneys Sam Grover and Patrick Elliott as co-counsel. Kallinen represented the late Kay Staley in her victorious litigation to remove a bible monument from the steps of the Harris County Courthouse.