One of my colleagues was reading a law review article the other day from former Judge Mike McConnell and ran across an interesting notation about pastors speaking in favor of candidates from their pulpits even during the days immediately following the ratification of the United States Constitution.  James Madison, who is known as one of the architects of the Constitution, was seeking a seat in the very first House of Representatives in 1789.  Madison was initially opposed to an amendment to the Constitution protecting the rights of religious freedom and conscience but, as Judge McConnell wrote in his law review article:

[W]hen he [Madison] initiated his candidacy for Congress, he discovered that his Baptist constituents were prepared to throw their support to his opponent, James Monroe. On advice of his political adviser, George Nicholas, Madison contacted Baptist leaders and proclaimed his support for “the most satisfactory provisions for all essential rights, particularly the rights of Conscience in the fullest latitude.” He then championed a constitutional provision for religious liberty as a campaign issue. The Baptist leaders responded by giving him their electoral support, which contributed to his narrow margin of victory. A letter to Madison contains an interesting eyewitness account of a gathering at the Blue Run Baptist Church, at which the minister, the Reverend George Eve, “took a very Spirited and decided Part in your favour” and “Spoke Long” on the subject of Madison’s contributions to religious freedom. (McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harvard Law Review 1409, 1477 (1990)).

You can read Mr. Johnson’s actual letter to James Madison online here.  I have a couple of thoughts in response to this.  First, I find it interesting to note that it was pastors who provided the impetus, at least in part, for the First Amendment, and specifically the protection of religious freedom.  Pastors have always been at the forefront of the great social and moral issues facing America and this is just one more example.

Second, as McConnell notes, it was only after pastors pressured Madison that he switched his position to support a provision that would later become the First Amendment.  This little vignette from American history demonstrates just how much of an impact pastors can have on American life.  And this is just one story in a mountain of historical evidence of the positive impact pastors have had on American history.

Finally, it seems to me that this story illustrates a powerful rebuttal to those who oppose the ADF Pulpit Initiative by arguing that allowing pastors to participate in politics will result in corruption of the church.  The Johnson Amendment was enacted in 1954.  There is at least a 166 year track record from the time of the ratification of the Constitution to the adoption of the Johnson Amendment.  The weight of history demonstrates that the clergy ably handled their important role in American electoral politics for those 166 years.  With this historical record, the charge that allowing pastors to speak freely from their pulpits would corrupt the church rings hollow.

Pastors have had an enormous influence on American history.  That influence has been unjustly removed by an unconstitutional law that had nothing to do with pastors in the first place.  It’s time to right the ship and restore the pastors’ rightful place in American life.  That’s what the Pulpit Initiative is all about.

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

The fictitious wall was not built over night, and it will not be dismantled over night.  This past week, ADF confronted the tangible results of the myth of an impenetrable wall of separation between church and state.  We sent out 151 letters to various governmental entities asking them to stop the discrimination against religious people.  These governmental entities, whose policies control over 750 public meeting rooms across the country, ban religious uses of their public meeting rooms.  So even though these rooms could be used by essentially any group to discuss any topic, they are off limits to Christians to discuss their religious viewpoints.

The most troubling aspect of this is the law in this area is crystal clear, and has been for some time.  In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in  Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, that a public school cannot prohibit a group from accessing its facilities to talk about Christian views on the family when the school opens its facilities to others to talk about the family from secular perspectives.  Your Christian world view does not disqualify you from being a full citizen in America.  Legally speaking, the matter was settled.  The Supreme Court spoke, and there was no wall!

But just to make sure local governing bodies got it, the Supreme Court reiterated this viewpoint neutrality requirement in 2001 in Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98.  In this case, the Court said that even when dealing with a Bible club in an elementary school, governing officials cannot discriminate against Christian views when giving access to its public meeting rooms.

So in light of this clearly established law, why is it that so many unconstitutional policies remain on the books?  I see two primary reasons.  First is ignorance.  So many people have bought into the myth of strict separation of church and state, and have heard this lie for so long, that they have come to believe it is a bedrock constitutional principle.  They are shocked to learn the phrase “separation of church and state” is no where found in our constitution!  When a lawyer tells me that there is an impenetrable wall separating church and state in our constitution, I just hand them a pocket constitution and say, “show me.”  They can’t because it’s not there.

Second, there is a faction out there that despises religious people.  There can be no appeasing this crowd.  They know that there is no wall of separation found in the constitution, but they wish it were there.  So they repeat this erroneous constitutional principle over and over and over in hopes that it will stick in peoples’ mind.  And unfortunately, the fact that so many bad policies are still on the books is evidence that their plan has worked to a degree.

So these governmental agencies have options in how they will respond to ADF’s letter.  Either they can treat this as an opportunity to educate themselves, learn what the constitution really says, and fix their policies.

Or, they can dig in their heels, insist on promoting an anti-religious agenda, and keep on discriminating against Christians.  Let’s hope our governmental officials do the right thing and stop the discrimination.

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

I read with interest the news reports on Comedy Central’s potential new show called “JC,” which would depict Christ as a modern day partier.  Several religious groups have rightly pointed out that even consideration of this show by the network demonstrates a double standard.  It recently censored shows that would be offensive to Muslims.  One columnist goes so far as to say this amounts to “Christophobia.” If there really is an irrational fear and hatred of Christians in this country, we shouldn’t be surprised. Christ Himself warned us that “all men will hate you because of me.”

There certainly is some evidence of “Christophobia” when it comes to recent treatment of the Church. ADF attorney Dale Schowengerdt lists several examples of churches being defaced and vandalized in his 5/27/10 blog.  This also shouldn’t be a surprise, since the Church is the Body of Christ. But it is disturbing in a land where Religious Freedom and churches have been the foundation for all other freedoms and our very way of life.  George Washington had it right when he said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.  …And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” We would do well not to forget our First President’s wise words.

ADF’s new Church Project is dedicated to encouraging and defending churches that heed Washington’s advice and are embracing their role as the moral compass of our country. Whether “JC” ever makes it to prime time or not, it’s encouraging to know that many churches continue to preach the truth in the face of hostility and ADF has their back when they do so.

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

Silly question, right? Not to one California church, who was barred from using a public library meeting room, even though the room was open to all other private community groups. The County Librarian even acknowledged that groups like the Ku Klux Klan were free to use the facility. But church services were forbidden.

It may be tempting to dismiss this as one isolated incident. But the sad reality is that these types of policies are prevalent around the country. ADF has successfully represented dozens of churches in similar cases. And we have uncovered hundreds of community centers, libraries, schools, and other public facilities around the country that rent to community groups, but blatantly discriminate against religious groups by refusing to rent to them or by charging them higher rental rates.

These policies make no sense. After all, social science bears out what many of us see as self-evident: churches offer valuable contributions to the community such as social services, education, increased volunteering, and reduced crime. (An Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission’s paper concisely summarizes many of these studies.) And, especially in this time of economic uncertainty, local governments would surely benefit from the additional revenue it would receive by renting otherwise unused facilities to churches.

So why is there so much hostility toward churches? Public officials often seem to have a Pavlovian-like reaction against anything religious, claiming that the so-called “separation of church and state” prevents churches from ever stepping foot in a public facility. But that’s not what the Constitution actually says. In fact, since 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in four different cases that the First Amendment gives religious groups the right to have equal access to a public forum that other community groups are allowed to use.

Fortunately for the California church, a federal court recognized this precedent and struck down the library policy as unconstitutional, opening the door for churches to have equal access to its meeting rooms. But it took five years of litigation to get there. Other cases have taken much longer. A school district in New York, for example, has been in court for 15 years doggedly fighting to keep churches from meeting in vacant school buildings on weekends.

ADF, who represents both churches, will continue to stand up for the time-honored principle that the First Amendment protects the right of all religious groups to equal access.

______________________________________________________

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

To learn about your church’s right to meet in public facilities, read Equal Access FAQ.

To understand what’s at stake, download this important summary. Learn what’s at risk and how you can specifically pray for equal access rights for churches.

Recently a federal court in Maryland undermined the independence of religious organizations when it allowed a nurse’s religious harassment claim against a Catholic institution to go forward.  It was the first such decision of its kind. Villa St. Catherine’s is a Catholic nursing center that the Court recognized is exempt from religious discrimination provisions of Title VII – the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination.  Congress wisely included this exemption so that religious organizations can maintain their religious character.  This makes constitutional and practical sense. A Jewish ministry to the poor should not have to hire a Muslim, and vice versa.  And when government entangles itself in the hiring and firing decisions of religious organizations, it violates the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom.  A good analysis of this aspect of Church Autonomy can be read here.

Significantly, the Maryland court agreed that St. Catherine’s should be able to maintain a workforce with beliefs compatible with Catholicism. The nurse in this case was not Catholic, but a member of the Church of the Brethren.  She alleged she was fired because of her religious beliefs, and the Court rejected that claim because religious organizations like Villa St. Catherine’s are allowed to fire people because they don’t share the organization’s religious beliefs.

But Nurse Kennedy also brought a claim for religious harassment and this is where the Court’s analysis and common sense part ways. Prior to being fired, Nurse Kennedy was told that her Church of the Brethren manner of dress – long skirts and a head covering – was not compatible with a Catholic institution and made the residents and family members uncomfortable.  When she complained about this reasonable instruction, she was fired, so she brought a retaliation claim (which the Court also allowed to go forward).

The upshot of it is, St. Catherine’s could have simply fired Nurse Kennedy because she was not Catholic. Instead of taking this drastic measure, she was advised to change her dress to comport with the beliefs of the institution and the people it serves.  Amazingly that reasonable effort to save the nurse’s job proved to be St. Catherine’s downfall.  Under this rationale, a Jewish nursing center could not require its employees to refrain from dressing in traditional Islamic garb – even though it would be contrary to Jewish teaching and have a disturbing effect on the individuals being served.

This is non-sensical and makes an end run around Congress’ well thought out efforts to protect religious organizations from liability when they ensure their employees’ religious beliefs comply with their own.  More significantly, it violates the religious freedom of religious organizations by requiring them to tolerate behavior that conflicts with their teaching and traditions.  Hopefully, St. Catherine’s will appeal this dangerous precedent and the Fourth Circuit will nip this new attack on religious freedom in the bud.

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