equal access laws

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Podcast: What would happen if GetReligion provided 'hot' GOP debate questions?

I’m not a fan of the cable-television festivals called “presidential debates,” because they rarely feature any substantial debates and the candidates don’t act presidential.

Maybe this is more evidence that I am what I am, a journalist who is a registered third-party person who doesn’t fit in America’s Republican-Democrat binary vise (rather like Megyn Kelly’s take here).

However, the producers at Lutheran Public Radio had an interesting idea for this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). They asked me to prepare questions — thinking religion-beat, GetReligion-oriented stuff — that I would ask if (#ducking) I was the moderator at last night’s GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Library.

I came up with 10 or so questions and I’ll share some of those shortly. However, I knew that the subjects that most interest me — as an old-school First Amendment liberal — would not be on this debate’s menu.

First, let’s deal with the orange elephant in the room. The New York Post, in it’s “exclusive drinking game for the second Republican presidential debate,” reminded viewers to:

Take a sip of WATER …

… every time Donald Trump is mentioned. This will keep you hydrated.

Later, the Post team offered these style points:

Take a sip of your drink …

… every time a candidate says “woke”

… when a candidate calls another candidate by an unflattering nickname

… when someone references the Biden Crime Family

… when a candidate uses a 3-letter acronym (think FBI, IRS, DEI, CDC)

… when a candidate tries to deflect when asked if they think the election was rigged

… when a candidate says they support Trump’s movement (but think they’re the one to finish the job)


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Washington Post looks at 'school choice' bills, and (#surprise) omits 'equal access' info

For a minute or two, I thought that the Washington Post was going to publish a fair-minded news feature about the complex issues involved in “school choice” legislation.

Alas, it soon became clear that this was another business-as-usual piece that was, for the most part, committed to featuring the voices of activists on one side of the story. The story also avoided a key church-state legal term that is shaping recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on this subject.

Thus, it’s time — once again — for readers to grab some highlighter pens. Hold that thought.

You can sense what’s going on in the headline: “More states are paying to send children to private and religious schools.”

Ah, but private schools are private schools, too. Some are secular, some are openly religious. Some of the religious schools are on the left, in terms of doctrine, and some are on the right. But they are all “private” schools. Are all private schools created equal? Did the Post team “get” this angle of the story and include some diversity in the sourcing?

The bottom line: What we have here is another one of those “highlighter pen” stories that GetReligion digs into every now and then. What readers need to do is print a copy of the story and then grab three pens with different colors — maybe red, blue and some variation on purple. The goal is to mark quotes representing voices on the cultural left, right and, maybe, even in the middle.

But first, here is how the story opens:

For years, school-choice advocates toted up small victories in their drive to give parents taxpayer money to pay for private school. Now, Republican-led states across the country are leaving the limitations of the past behind them as they consider sweeping new voucher laws that would let every family use public funds to pay for private school.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
New podcast: Are some SCOTUS justices asking, 'Are all religious schools equal in Maine?'

Let’s say that, in the state of Maine, there are two very different “Lutheran” schools. You could, in this hypothetical case, also say “Episcopal,” or “Presbyterian” or “Congregational.”

Leaders at one of these schools insist that their school is in “the Lutheran tradition,” and it may retain ties to a doctrinally liberal flock. The school has a chapel, but attendance is optional since its students (it may be an elite boarding school) come from all kinds of religious faiths or have no stated faith at all. Classes on hot-button moral issues — sexuality, for example — stress this church’s progressive doctrines.

Academic life is very different at the other Lutheran school, which draws most of its students and financial support from a conservative Lutheran body. Chapel attendance is required and classes linked to moral theology are quite countercultural — defending 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

The question, in the latest church-state case at the U.S. Supreme Court, is whether the state of Maine has the power to say that the first school is eligible for tuition support — using tax dollars — because it’s policies do not clash with those in public schools. Students at the conservative school are not eligible, because its beliefs are “sectarian.”

This is tricky territory and church-state experts on the Religious Right would certainly disagree with experts from the Religious Left and secular think tanks. The question discussed in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) is whether journalists covering this case allowed readers a chance to understand the views of activists on both sides.

Let me state, right up front, that my dueling Lutherans illustration is based on “equal access” church-state principles that emerged from a left-right coalition during the Bill Clinton administration. The big idea: If state officials create policies that affect nonprofits, they cannot back secular groups while discriminating against religious organizations. States could, however, deny aid to both. In other words, religious faith is not a uniquely dangerous form of speech or activity.

Let me state this another way. Under the separation of church and state, officials are not supposed to use tax dollars to back state-approved forms of religion. Ah! But what if some religious groups have doctrines that are consistent with state policies, while others clash with the doctrines of the state?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

This story has been hot for about 50 years: Religion do's and don'ts in public schools

, , , , , , , , ,
This story has been hot for about 50 years: Religion do's and don'ts in public schools

THE QUESTION:

What are the do's and don'ts on religion in U.S. public schools?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

As U.S. public schools cope with in-person learning in the midst of another COVID-19 upsurge and argue about "critical race theory," let's remember some good news. Divisive past disputes about how schools handle religion have been substantially settled. Debates continue on certain church-and-state issues but most deal with religious schools and taxpayer funding, not public education.

There's widespread agreement on what federal court rulings require, and on what common sense commends in light of today's pluralistic student bodies. A remarkably broad alliance of groups has joined in a series of policy statements brokered by Senior Fellow Charles Haynes at the First Amendment Center. Click here to read the full texts for yourself or print them out.

The lists of those endorsing the policies vary somewhat but typically they involve all the relevant public school associations alongside major "mainline" and "evangelical" Protestant organizations; Reform, Orthodox and "communal" Jewish groups; religious liberty advocates; and the Council on Islamic Education. Though most lack official backing from the U.S. Catholic bishops' conference, no conflicts with church thinking have been raised.

Especially significant is "A Teacher’s Guide to Religion in Public Schools," issued in 2004. Others are "A Parent's Guide to Religion in the Public Schools," "The Equal Access Act: Questions and Answers," "Religion in the Public School Curriculum: Questions and Answers," "Religious Holidays in the Public Schools: Questions and Answers," "The Bible and Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide" and "Public Schools and Religious Communities: A First Amendment Guide."

The overriding agreed principle: "The First Amendment prohibits public-school teachers from either inculcating or inhibiting religion. Teachers must remain neutral concerning religion, neutral among religions and neutral between religion and non-religion."

Thus, schools are neither "religion-free zones" nor platforms for worship or evangelism.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Once again, AP accuses big Catholic bosses of abusing government coronavirus relief efforts

There they go again.

In this case, “they” refers to whoever is in charge of religion-news coverage these days at the Associated Press. Someone there needs to take a remedial course in (a) church history, (b) church-state law in the United States or (c) both.

Let’s start by flashing back about six months, when the AP rolled out an investigation of what its editors clearly thought was a scandal of epic proportions. Does anyone remember this lede, and this GetReligion dissection (“AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money“), of the expose)?

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

That was a bizarre, but honest, opener. The entire story was built on the assumption that there is such a thing — corporately and legally speaking — as a “U.S. Roman Catholic Church.”

As I said at the time, this is “like saying that there is an ‘American Public School System,’ as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.” One could also note that there is a Planned Parenthood of America. However, government coronavirus aid in the paycheck-support program went to 37 regional and local Planned Parenthood groups.

The Associated Press has now produced a sequel, with this headline: “Sitting on billions, Catholic dioceses amassed taxpayer aid.” While the editors avoided the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” label this time around, this lengthy story is built on a similar misunderstanding of what happened when Catholic parishes, schools, nonprofits and other ministries applied for coronavirus aid.

As readers can see in the headline, in the sequel AP leaders focused on finances at the diocesan level, as opposed to a mythical national Catholic structure. This is closer to the truth, but it still misses the mark. While many issues of church authority are linked to local bishops, in local dioceses, the crucial issue here was paycheck-relief money reaching staff members in individual parishes, schools and ministries that had been rocked by falling donations during the COVID-19 crisis. Let’s start with the overture:


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

AP explains why it was wrong for local-level Catholic employees to get coronavirus relief money

, , , , , , , , , , ,

That Associated Press headline the other day certainly was a grabber: “Catholic Church lobbied for taxpayer funds, got $1.4B.” Let’s start with three statements about this in-depth report:

(1) The headline and the lede both assume there is such a thing as the “U.S. Roman Catholic Church” and that someone can write a check that will be cashed by that institution. This is like saying that there is an “American Public School System,” as opposed to complex networks of schools at the local, regional and state levels.

(2) There are national Catholic organizations that speak — and even lobby — for Catholic groups and causes, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This doesn’t wipe out the reality of local parishes, ministries, schools, religious orders, regional dioceses, etc.

(3) It was completely valid to do an in-depth report on how Catholic nonprofit groups campaigned to receive coronavirus relief money for their employees — for precisely the same reasons journalists can, and should, investigate similar activities by other huge nonprofits and companies with complex national, regional and local structures. Maybe start with Planned Parenthood, just to provide some balance?

The key, once again, is a concept that came up the other day at the U.S. Supreme Court — “equal access.” Under these legal principles, part of the legacy of a liberal-conservative coalition in the Clinton-Gore years, government entities are supposed to treat religious organizations (think nonprofits) the same way they treat similar secular groups. They can work with all of them (sacred and secular alike) or they can turn all of them down.

They key is that they are treated the same. The bottom line: Religion is not a uniquely dangerous force in American life. This topic is discussed — sort of — way down in the AP feature.

But here is the overture of this follow-the-money investigative piece:

NEW YORK (AP) — The U.S. Roman Catholic Church used a special and unprecedented exemption from federal rules to amass at least $1.4 billion in taxpayer-backed coronavirus aid, with many millions going to dioceses that have paid huge settlements or sought bankruptcy protection because of clergy sexual abuse cover-ups.

The church’s haul may have reached -- or even exceeded -- $3.5 billion, making a global religious institution with more than a billion followers among the biggest winners in the U.S. government’s pandemic relief efforts, an Associated Press analysis of federal data released this week found.

Note that nice neutral noun there in the second paragraph — “haul.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Why didn't @NYTimes mention complex political history of 'equal access' laws?

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The church-state roller-coaster at the U.S. Supreme Court just keeps going and we’re not done yet.

The main purpose of this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) was to talk about my recent post about Chief Justice Roberts and his decision to switch sides and defend the high court’s abortion legacy. SCOTUS, on a 5-4 vote, took down a Louisiana state law that would have required doctors working in abortion facilities to have the same kind of admitting privileges at local hospitals and those who work in other specialty surgery centers.

Mainstream journalists didn’t seem interested in the personalities behind that law. To get those ordinary facts, readers had to go to religious and/or “conservative” websites. Thus, I offered this headline: “Conservative news? White GOP justice strikes down bill by black, female pro-life Democrat.” Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana, who signed the bill, is a Democrat, too.

Why did so many journalists ignore that angle? It would appear that those facts didn’t fit into the white evangelicals just love Donald Trump template. Why muddy the political waters with coverage of two Democrats — a black Baptist and a white Catholic?

Lo and behold, by the time we did the live Lutheran Public Radio show, the court had released another 5-4 decision that, at first glance, had little or nothing to do with the Louisiana abortion bill. Here’s the New York Times double-decker headline on that story:

Supreme Court Gives Religious Schools More Access to State Aid

Religious schools should have the same access to scholarships and funds as other private schools, the justices ruled, in a victory for conservatives.

Readers who have followed church-state issues will recognize a key fact that the Times team — to its credit — got into that headline: Secular and religious private schools should be treated the same.

That immediately made me wonder if the Times, and other major mainstream outlets, were going to realize that this “equal access” principle was crucial to the church-state coalition of liberals and conservatives that accomplished so much working with (wait for it) the Clinton White House.

That’s interesting, right?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Howard County, Maryland, officials tried to ban Mass: Why wasn't that a news story?

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Does anyone remember the coronavirus pandemic?

Think back a week or even two. You may remember headlines about tensions between people who wanted to “open up” the economy at the local level and others who wanted to continue with lockdowns or other “shelter at home” policies for citizens as a whole (as opposed to those uniquely at risk). This was not strictly a left vs. right thing, but the further one went to the extremes — extended lockdowns vs. strong attempts to “return to normal” — the more political things became.

That seems so long ago. Still, I would like to flash back to something that happened recently in Maryland, the state I called home for more than a decade. Here at GetReligion, we have been spending quite a bit of time focusing on coverage of the overwhelming majority of religious flocks that are trying to return to some form of corporate worship — while stressing safety and social-distancing principles.

Here’s the Catholic News Agency headline: “Maryland county lifts ban on Communion.”

My question: Did you see any mainstream news coverage of this story? The overture:

Howard County, Maryland, has reversed a policy that banned consumption of any food or drink during religious services, effectively preventing the licit celebration of Mass.

A county spokesman told CNA May 28 the prohibition will be removed, and faith leaders will be consulted on future guidelines for church reopenings amid the coronavirus pandemic.

On Tuesday, Howard County Executive Calvin Ball issued an executive order delineating reopening regulations and conditions for houses of worship and other entities deemed “non-essential” by the state of Maryland.

“There shall be no consumption of food or beverage of any kind before, during, or after religious services, including food or beverage that would typically be consumed as part of a religious service,” that order said.

Ever since seeing that news item, I have been running online searches — of news sources and then the Internet as a whole — for mainstream news coverage of this amazing example of a clash between government officials and worship in mainstream religious institutions.

Please click here and scan the results of a new search for the terms “Howard County,” “Communion” and “Maryland.”

What do you see in these results?


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds

, , , , , , , , , , ,

It didn’t take long to realize that there would be church-state clashes between independent-minded religious groups — from fundamentalist Baptists to Hasidic Jews — and state officials during the coronavirus crisis.

So that was the big story, at first: Lots of crazy white MAGA evangelicals wanted to keep having face-to-face church, even if it was clear that this put lives at risk in the pews and in their surrounding communities. That was the subject of last week’s “On Religion” podcast.

The real story was more complex than that, of course. The vast majority of religious congregations and denominations (you can make a case for 99%) recognized the need for “shelter in place” orders and cooperated. The preachers who rebelled were almost all leading independent Pentecostal and evangelical churches and quite a few of them were African-Americans.

So that was a story with three camps: (1) The 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online (that wasn’t big news), (2) the small number of preachers who rebelled (big story in national media) and (3) government leaders who just wanted to do the right thing and keep people alive.

However, things got more complex during the Easter weekend (for Western churches) and that’s what “Crossroads” host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this week’s podcast (click here to tune that in).

As it turned out, there were FIVE CAMPS in this First Amendment drama and the two that made news seemed to be off the radar of most journalists.

But not all. As Julia Duin noted in a post early last week (“Enforcement overkill? Louisville newspaper tries to document the ‘war on Easter”), the Courier-Journal team managed, with a few small holes, to cover the mess created by different legal guidelines established by Kentucky’s governor and the mayor of Louisville.

That’s where drive-in worship stories emerged as the important legal wrinkle that made an already complex subject even harder to get straight.

Those five camps?


Please respect our Commenting Policy