Religious litigants were successful this Supreme Court Term wielding their religious identity as both a shield and a sword. The Roberts Court delivered just what they ordered: ever more expansive rights to government funding, based on their right not to be discriminated against, and mounting immunity from the employment discrimination laws. Thanks to President Trump, the Court now has a conservative, religious majoritywhich is composed of four Catholic men (Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh) and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who is apparently Episcopalian. They were a well-oiled machine delivering for religious believers with nary a concern about who might be harmed.

As religious litigants succeed in expanding their opportunities for government-sourced income streams, and eschew the legal obligations on everyone else, they also persist in their expectations of no public accountability about their finances. Unlike other nonprofits, they maintain their tax-exempt status without having to truthfully disclose their actual finances, donors, or lobbying activity. The result is a greater capacity to pursue government funds under cover, e.g., the PPP loans through which the Catholic dioceses and parishes raked in $1.4 billion, and an ever-increasing power to impose their beliefs on their employees, whether co-believers or not.

There was a time when the separation of church and state, that concept devised by Baptist preacher John Leland and embodied in James Madisons First Amendments Establishment Clause, meant that the government was foreclosed from moving tax proceeds into religious coffers. Madison, the drafter of the First Amendment, railed against taxpayer support of religious education in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. He said not even three pence in taxes should flow from a citizen to support religious education. Why? Because government financial support of religion is bad for religion and bad for government; it leads to a union of power that the framing generation understood leads to tyranny.

One of the projects of religious lobbyists and some law professors since the 1990s has been to open the sluice to increased government funding of religious education and activities. They shrewdly adopted the vernacular of discrimination, arguing that if any other entity was receiving taxpayer funds, well, then, they should, too. Their first major success was in 1995 in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, where the Court ruled 5-4 that the University of Virginia was required to financially support a religious club engaged in proselytization if it also supported secular clubs. The decision planted the seed they hoped to cultivate that religious entities must be treated equally with all others that receive government dollars. They reasoned that if they are not included as beneficiaries of public funds, they are victims of discrimination. Dont worry about James Madisons concern about corruption and an unholy union of power. Instead, accept that religious entities and secular entities are the same when it comes to funding.

In 2017, the Roberts Court gave that seed a heavy watering with the Chief Justices majority opinion in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, holding that a church must receive recycled rubber playground resurfacing if other playgrounds did as well. This Term, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, Roberts took the Court one step farther, holding that the government cannot have a scholarship fund that includes private schools but not religious private schools. This was a victory for private religious schools coffers.

While they have posed as the victims of unfair discrimination in government funds, religious entities have also pushed an agenda of discrimination against their employees. In other words, they have seen no need to draw a connection between public values like nondiscrimination and the fact they are demanding taxpayer proceeds and tax-free status.

In the 1980s, religious lobbyists with their supportive law professors took to the legislatures to demand what they are fond of calling autonomy. They frequently argue that they are so special that while they should be treated as equals in terms of finances, they should not have to obey the laws meant for everyone else. They may piously demand equal treatment when it comes to government dollars, but they are determined to be able to discriminate against their employees at will in as many ways as possible. Three cases this Term enhance their power to discriminate.

Their preferred mechanisms for avoiding the obligations of the law are the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and a doctrine called the ministerial exception.

This Term, the Roberts Court in an opinion by Justice Alito enlarged the ministerial exception in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru and St. James School v. Biel, to hold that lay teachers at Catholic schools are not protected by the federal laws against age discrimination or disability discrimination. Alito intoned how very religious their teaching activities were, without once making a nod to how devastating it can be to lose your job because of your age or cancer diagnosis. Employees of religious entities beware: regardless of what the faith believes, they can violate your civil rights on a whim (after they pay you a pittance compared to other private schools and public schools).

The less-noticed moment of a newly defined power to discriminate appeared in the Bostock v. Clayton County case where Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority. The headline from this case was that sex in Title VII includes LGBTQ and so employers would not be permitted to discriminate against their gay or trans employees. This seemed like such a progressive opinion! Yet, read the opinion to the end where Gorsuch laid the foundation to permit anyone to discriminate against LGBTQ under Title VII if they are able to articulate a religious reason for it.

At the end of the majority opinion, Gorsuch went out of his way to point out that the employers in that case did not raise a religious defense to the claims, but if they had, there is an escape hatch: RFRA. Before you become comfortable thinking, well, that wont apply to major corporations, please remember Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In that case, a for-profit lucrative arts and crafts chain successfully invoked RFRA to deny women employees contraceptive coverage that conflicted with the owners faith. That would otherwise be a violation of the womens rights against gender and religious discrimination under Title VII, but as Gorsuch declared, RFRA is a super statute. Thus, Bostock modified by RFRA opens the door to discrimination against LGBTQ employees by individuals, nonprofits, and for-profit organizations.

RFRAs capacity to undermine public health in Hobby Lobby was reinforced this Term in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, where the majority, in an opinion by Justice Thomas, held that the Trump administrations evisceration of the contraceptive mandate (requiring no-cost contraception for all women) through broad religious and moral exemptions was supported by RFRA. As with all of these decisions, the spotlight was trained on the religious actors while their victims essentially sat in the dark, off to the side, ignored by the justices who were busy constructing a separate world for fellow believers without the bothersome Lockean obligations of a shared society.

Essentially, the conservative members of the Court have built a functional and operational establishment. They have created entitlements to government support, while they have built shelter for religious entities and business owners from the principles of fairness and accountability that undergird Title VII.

Madison sagely described the effect of religious establishments on civil society: sometimes they erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority and at others, they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny. Either way, according to Madison, they have not been the guardians of the liberties of the people.

Amen to that.

Read more:

Religious Entities Flex Their Muscles Through the Roberts Court, Playing Both Sides of the Discrimination Coin - Justia Verdict

White evangelical voters abandoned Carter in droves for the GOP, and that alliance has only solidified over time. (Black evangelicals, who have a long history of political engagement going back to the civil rights era, did not follow the same path; they overwhelmingly identify as Democrats, though dont always align with the party on social issues.) Three quarters of white evangelicals supported Donald Trump in 2016 and their support for him remains high. But his approval among this group has dipped in recent months.

Its not clear that this will translate into more votes for Democratsdefectors could stay home or vote third partybut there are at least some signs of change. Forrester of Christian Democrats of America said that her organizations Facebook group has had a lot of evangelical converts join since the election. In the 2016 presidential election, 16 percent of white evangelicals voted for Hillary Clinton; in a recent survey, 17 percent said they would vote for Biden.

That could bode well for the small but growing number of religious candidates embracing the more liberal evangelical tradition embodied by Carter. In Georgia, the Rev. Raphael Warnock, a pastor at the evangelical church where Martin Luther King Jr. once preached, is running for U.S. Senate as a Democrat. In Missouri, Christian pastor Cori Bush is running for Congress. In Colorado, evangelical immigrant rights activist Michelle Warren, having fallen just short of making the ballot in her U.S. Senate bid this year, is already planning another run.

Often, these candidates have views that largely align with core progressive positions like a womans right to choose, marriage equality, action on climate change, immigrant rights and an expansion of the social safety net. Some have won high profile endorsements. Warnock was endorsed by Stacey Abrams and led the Democratic field in fundraising; Bush was endorsed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and Scholten has the endorsement of Senator Elizabeth Warren and the progressive organization Emilys List.

But the backing of Democratic heavyweights doesnt guarantee support from progressive voters, many of whom view religion with skepticism. In a 2019 poll, 44 percent of Democrats said churches and religious organizations "do more harm than good in American society." A large majority of Democrats said "liberals who are not religious" have too little or just the right amount of control over the party. Only 15 percent said they had too much. Last year, the Democratic Party passed a resolution explicitly embracing atheists after lobbying from secular groups.

Some progressive voters interviewed for this story worry that overtly religious candidates, even Democrats, will inevitably blur the line, established by the First Amendment, between church and state. It needs to be utterly and completely separate, says Andrea Geralds, a pro-choice, hardcore constitutionalist from Michigan who does not live in Scholtens district. There is no middle ground for me. Even when candidates of faith say they unequivocally support the First Amendment, Geralds remains unconvinced. As far as I'm concerned, they're probably lying, she says. She is less distrustful when it comes to other faiths. When people say, Well, are you saying that about X religion? No, I'm saying it about evangelicals, because evangelicals are actively trying to harm people in my country. She says that if given the choice between a progressive evangelical candidate and a Republican, she would stay home.

Wil Schweitzer, an independent in Georgia who believes abortion is a private matter and people who are LGBTQ deserve equal rights, is similarly skeptical about Warnocks senate run. When I see Reverend beside a name that is asking to be elected into a position of power, red flags go up, he says. He said he will not vote for Warnock in the states special general election this November.

Like Scholten, some religious candidates have moved away from calling themselves evangelical because the label, as popularly understood, no longer aligns with their values.

Pastor Bryan Berghoef, who is running in Michigan in the district next to Schoeltens, once considered himself evangelical but stopped identifying personally with the term a decade or so ago. He isnt surprised that some voters are uncomfortable. They've only seen the conservative, ugly side of it, he says.

Berghoef is running in a red district that is more tolerant ofand arguably demandspolicy positions that could easily sink a candidate in states like California or New York. He is pro-choice, but believes that reducing the number of abortions, through progressive policies like expanding access to health care and providing a living wage, is an important goal (a once mainstream position that Bill Clinton described as abortion being safe, legal, and rare). Berghoef is popular among local Democrats, in part for his long record of advocating LGBTQ rights and racial justice. In November, he will face off against Republican Bill Huizenga, who is currently under investigation for ethics violations.

Politically, religious candidates must walk a fine line between being true to their religious convictions, which can sometimes give rise to more centrist positions, particularly on social issues, and alienating a progressive base that has swung decidedly leftward.

In 2018, Tabitha Isner, an ordained pastor and a Democrat, ran in a deep red district in Alabama. Isner is a member of the Christian Church (Disciplies of Christ), a progressive church that welcomes LGBTQ parishioners and clergy. But when Isner, who supports gay rights, was asked at a campaign event about a bakers right to refuse service to gay customers, she admitted that she wrestled with the question. I said, Well, this is hard, she recalls. I struggle with that as a person of faith, not because I would ever discriminate against gay people but because I understand the value of religious freedom.

She was skewered for it in progressive circles. I lost five gay friends who just thought it was outrageous that I would try to empathize, Isner says. We have a real chip on our shoulder as a party about Christians.

Of course, with a second Trump term on the line, the possibility of cutting into the presidents evangelical base could prove too hard to resist, even for Democratic voters skeptical of religion. Lori Goldman, founder of Fems for Dems, a political action committee in Michigan that seeks to elect progressives, said her organization would support any candidate whose policies align with progressive values, though she acknowledges deeply religious candidates give her pause. I get a bad taste in my mouth, she says. People have done the most egregious things in the name of religion since the beginning of time.

For her part, Scholten talks about her faith openly on the campaign trail. I think that voters have a right to know the person who is representing them, she says. The local leader who expressed skepticism at first eventually came around, too. He said, You're a Christian mom who is a civil rights attorney and wants to run as a Democrat in western Michigan, Scholten recalls. This is either going to be the flip of the century, or we're going to go down in flames.

Link:

Could These Evangelical Democrats Change the Party? - POLITICO

The right to free speech in Americaneeds to be protected, Princeton Universityjurisprudence professor Robert George statedFriday.

George's comments during an interview on"Fox News @ Night"came following a Michigan bed and breakfast's decision to remove their Norwegian flag afterdozens wrongly accused the owners of flying a Confederate flag.

MICHIGAN INN REMOVES NORWEGIAN FLAG AS RESIDENTS FALSELY BELIEVE IT'S THE CONFEDERATE FLAG: REPORT

According to reporting from WLIX, when Greg and Kjersten Offbecker created the St. Johns inn -- named The Nordic Pineapple -- they installed the flag, hanging an American flag alongside it.

The pair then beganto receive cruel emails and phone calls. Some were even convinced that the "B&B" was built by Confederate leaders when, in fact, union workers constructed the Civil War-era building forthe daughter of the Saint Johns founder.

Kjersten Offbecker said the flag was hung as a way for her to represent her Scandinavian heritage. However, with the confusion, she took it down because she said it was not worth the frustration.

The Norwegian flag has the same colors as the Confederate flag, but the patterns and symbols are different. The Confederate flag is red with a blue X containing white stars.

"It's a combination of a very bad attitude and a great deal of ignorance," George remarked. "You would think that Americans would be able to tell what is and isn't a Confederate flag -- even if it's a flag that, in some ways, resembles a Confederate flag.

"But, look at how quickly people just turn to outrage and tried to shut these people down because they thought they had broken the rule against wrongthink..." he told host Shannon Bream. "So, the combination of malice and ignorance is really toxic."

George highlighted the importance of speaking upin defense of the free speech rights of those you strongly may disagree with.

"Temple University was under pressure to discipline [Professor] Marc Lamont Hill for some statements that I very strongly disagreed with. But I, nevertheless, threatened to myself lead a protest...in defense of the free speech rights of the very progressive Marc Lamont Hill," he explained. "Because he has every bit of [a right to] free speech as I have or as anybody else has.

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

"The First Amendment is for all of us," George pointed out.

"It's not the property of the left. It's not the property of the right. It's not the conservatives'; it's not the liberals' [property]. It's everybody's right..." he said.

"And so, we need to protect the free speech rights and stand up for the free speech rights of those we oppose," George urged.

Fox News' Jack Durschlag and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Here is the original post:

Princeton professor pushes back on cancel culture on campuses: 'First Amendment is for all of us' - Fox News