In C.S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, the senior devil Screwtape writes to the junior devil Wormwood, “Prosperity knits a man to the world. He feels he is ‘finally finding his place in it,’ while really it is finding its place in him.” No, the National Labor Relations Board didn’t really quote (or even mention) Lewis, but it did hand down a decision on January 10, 2011 that applies Screwtape’s observation.

The Board ruled it had jurisdiction over the labor practices of Manhattan College in the Bronx – a traditionally Catholic School.  A copy of the ruling can be accessed at LifeSiteNews. The ruling noted that the NLRB often will not interfere in the relationship of a religious school and its faculty because teachers are responsible for inculcating the theological beliefs of the school.  If government tells school officials who they should hire and which employees should be retained, it risks entangling itself with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

But the school must truly be a religious institution for this rule to apply, and Manhattan College no longer qualifies.  It was founded as a Catholic institution, but drifted away from that original purpose.  Religious training for students that’s designed to indoctrinate them in Catholicism is no longer required.  Any religious courses that are required are academic in nature, not devotional. Neither faculty nor students are required to be Catholic, or even have a belief in God. The school emphasizes its independence from the Catholic Church in brochures and other documents made available to the public. And Manhattan College apparently receives very little funding or input into day to day operations by the Catholic Church or the religious order that founded the school.

These are just some of the factors that courts consider when determining whether an organization is religious and therefore subject to less government control. A comprehensive list of factors can be found on our resource page here.  I also wrote a more specific, in-depth analysis on these factors titled Protecting Catholic Colleges From External Threats to Their Catholic Identity for the Cardinal Newman Society.  You can access that article at their website here.

The lesson from the Manhattan College case is simple – schools and other religious organization must decide whether they are truly religious or not if they want to take advantage of religious exemptions to governmental regulation. It is not enough to call themselves religious, but act like a secular institution for funding, marketing, or recruiting reasons. Lewis was right, they cannot find their place in this world without the world finding its place in them.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

Just before Christmas, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim that Arlington County Virginia violated the Establishment Clause when it worked with a church to develop a building that contained both a church and affordable housing. A link to the court’s opinion in Glassman v. Arlington County can be found here.

First Baptist Church of Clarendon, Virginia had a problem – it needed a new church building and it wanted to provide affordable housing for people in an urban area of Arlington County. The church agreed to raze its existing place of worship, and in its place erect a building that contained church facilities on the first two floors, and apartments on the upper eight floors. The church financed the construction of its portion of the building, and Arlington County and the federal government financed the construction of the apartments. This was a win-win situation for everyone except for a local resident who opposed the project, Peter Glassman.

Mr. Glassman argued that the government cannot work with a church – even if they have mutual goals.  And he was particularly concerned that the church and the apartment residents would both share the same lobby and elevator.  Even worse, the tenants of the affordable housing would actually be exposed to a church steeple!

The Court of Appeals rejected all these arguments out of hand. Citing well-established Supreme Court precedent (Agostini v. Felton), it properly observed that the Establishment Clause “does not prohibit all interaction between church and state. To the contrary, interaction between church and state is inevitable, and we have always tolerated some level of involvement between the two.”

The court concluded that this was a “legitimate joint effort of the Church and the County to bring about the development of a real estate project, in which the Church funds construction of the portions to be used for sectarian purposes and the County funds construction of the portions to be used for the secular purpose of providing affordable housing.”

The Establishment Clause was meant to prohibit the government from establishing a church as the state religion, not keep churches from working with the government to help provide people with affordable housing.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

The Christmas season is always a busy time for churches with opportunities for presenting the Gospel to folks who may only attend church on holidays, and challenges like attempting to keep 50 pre-schoolers from falling off the stage during the annual play.  The spike in attendance many churches experience sometimes necessitates renting school auditoriums or other public facilities to handle special programs like the Christmas play.  And some churches even get permission to erect Christmas displays in public parks.

Unfortunately, there are some groups that view Christmas time as the right time to attack religion by misusing the First Amendment to restrict religious speech.  They use the Establishment Clause – originally meant to protect the Church from control by the State – as an Anti-Christmas Clause.

The good news is courts have held that churches have every right to use public facilities and parks that are generally open to the public.  We’ve summarized the law governing equal access for churches in a document titled “Equal Access FAQ” on our resource page. That law is very clear: churches get the same access to government facilities to express their message as other community groups.  They cannot be denied equal access just because their message is religious.

For instance, in the 1993 case,  Kreisner v. City of San Diego, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a private group could erect a Christmas display in San Diego’s famous Balboa Park.  The group (called the Christmas Committee) had been obtaining an annual permit for the display every November and December since 1953.  The display depicted eight scenes from the life of Christ – most of which centered around His birth.  Each scene was accompanied by an appropriate passage of Scripture.

Thankfully, the court got it right and confirmed that the Establishment Clause isn’t a license to attack public observance of Christmas – even if it is religious.  Churches should not be intimidated by anti-Christian groups and ignorant government officials who think religious speakers don’t have the same right to access government facilities as everyone else.  They should contact us at ADF, and we’ll make sure all involved are aware of what the law really says, and go to court to enforce the Church’s rights, if necessary.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch.

Thank God we’re not as far gone as North Korea, but we’re definitely headed that direction. Christianity Today reports that government officials raided a Christian church service and either executed or jailed all 23 in attendance. The report observes:

Being a Christian in North Korea is considered one of the worst crimes by the oppressive government. All citizens are forced to adhere to a personality cult revolving around the worship of the current dictator and his deceased father.  No other religious beliefs are allowed in the country.

As exemplified by North Korea, the alternative to religious freedom is totalitarianism and worship of the state. If God is taken away, people will attempt to find meaning in life by worshiping something. Professor Esbeck correctly points out in his treatise on the Establishment Clause that religious freedom and “theism work [ ] to the benefit of democracy and the state” through, providing meaning to life apart from the State, limiting government (thus avoiding totalitarianism), and teaching morality.

We’re still a long way off, but make no mistake, recent attacks on religious freedom here in the U.S. open the door for unlimited government, and eventual persecution of the Church. North Korea is a great example of what we’re fighting to avoid.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch

On April 15, 2010, United States District Court Judge Barbara Crabb, for the Western District of Wisconsin, struck down the National Day of Prayer statute, 36 U.S.C. § 119. This opinion usurped hundreds of years of American history and tradition and must be overturned. It was on November 26, 1789, that George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Day prayer proclamation, calling this nation to a day of prayer and giving thanks. But if this decision is not overturned, future prayer proclamations like our first president’s will be jeopardized. Be assured, though, that the Alliance Defense Fund is prepared to devote its resources and manpower to protecting our American heritage and religious freedom.

In striking down the statute, the court ruled it serves no secular purpose, but rather calls the nation to engage in a religious exercise – prayer. The court also ruled that the NDP statute violated the endorsement test because a reasonable observer, upon reviewing the statute, would conclude that the government endorses religion. And according to this court, even the endorsement of religion generally is a violation of the establishment clause. The court concluded, “[b]ecause the National Day of Prayer does not have a secular purpose or effect, it cannot survive scrutiny under Lemon and the endorsement test.”
We at the Alliance Defense Fund believe this court’s decision will be overturned as the Supreme Court has already upheld the very similar practice of legislative prayer. In Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of opening a legislative session with prayer because it dates back to the founding fathers.

But the Wisconsin federal judge ruled that Marsh is a limited opinion that should not be applied in this case. The court stated that while the NDP statute encourages national prayer, the legislative prayers in Marsh were just examples of ceremonial deism. In addition, the court said that just because prayer proclamations have been going on since our nation’s inception, that does not make the practice right.

The good news is that the court’s ruling specifically does not apply to the 2010 National Day of Prayer, or to any other future National Days of Prayer until this case has been fully appealed, which could include an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. We will continue to fight in this case through all appeals to protect our religious heritage. It is vitally important that decisions like this attempt to minimize America’s religious historical roots are not allowed to stand.

Please leave a comment below to share your thoughts or follow us on Facebook to join the conversation. http://www.facebook.com/SpeakUpChurch