WASHINGTON (RNS)—The United States operated 408 boarding schools for indigenous children across 37 states or then-territories between 1819 and 1969—half of them likely supported by religious institutions.

That’s according to the first volume of an investigative report into the country’s Indian boarding school system that was released May 11 by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“Our initial investigation results show that approximately 50 percent of federal Indian boarding schools may have received support or involvement from religious institutions or organizations, including funding, infrastructure and personnel,” Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Newland said at a news conference on the progress of the department’s Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative.

The report revealed nearly 40 more schools than the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition previously had identified in the United States—and nearly three times more than the number of schools documented in Canada’s residential school system by that country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It also recorded the deaths of more than 500 children and identified marked or unmarked burial sites at more than 50 schools across the American Indian boarding school system. The department expects those numbers to go up as it continues to investigate.

The findings also compiled previous reports describing an “unprecedented delegation of power by the Federal Government to church bodies.”

First-ever inventory of boarding schools

The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative was announced last summer by Interior Secretary Deb Haaland to investigate the history and lasting consequences of the schools. That announcement came as groups across Canada confirmed the remains of more than 1,000 indigenous children buried near former residential schools for indigenous children there.

The Department of the Interior was “uniquely positioned” to undertake such an initiative, according to the report, because it had been responsible for operating or overseeing the boarding schools.

From 1819 through the 1960s, the United States implemented policies establishing and supporting Indian boarding schools across the nation. The report includes the first-ever inventory of those federally operated schools, including profiles and maps of each school.

The boarding schools supported a “twin United States policy” to culturally assimilate Native American, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian children and to seize indigenous land, according to Newland, a citizen of the Bay Mills Indian Community (Ojibwe).

“The report explains that the federal government pursued this policy of forced assimilation by targeting Indian children. Federal Indian boarding schools were the primary means to carry out this policy, and the report shows that all three branches of the federal government impacted the system,” he said.

Generations of children were “induced or compelled by the federal government” to attend the schools, which separated them from their families, languages, religions and cultures, he said.

Schools sought to assimilate children

The schools attempted to assimilate children in a number of ways, including giving indigenous children English names, cutting their hair, even organizing them into units to perform military drills, according to the report. They discouraged or prevented children from speaking indigenous languages or from engaging in their own spiritual and cultural practices.

Many children endured physical and emotional abuse. Some died.

“The consequences of federal Indian boarding school policies—including the intergenerational trauma caused by forced family separation and cultural eradication, which were inflicted upon generations of children as young as 4 years old—are heartbreaking and undeniable,” said Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna and the first Native American to serve as a Cabinet secretary.

The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative’s work included collecting records and information related to the department’s involvement in the Indian boarding school program and consulting with tribal nations, Alaska Native corporations and Native Hawaiian organizations.

It also partnered with the National Boarding School Healing Coalition.

‘A historic moment’

Deborah Parker, a citizen of the Tulalip Tribes and chief executive officer of the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition, said their collaborative work had identified nearly 500 boarding schools total, including another 89 that received no federal funding.

“This is a historic moment as it reaffirms the stories we all grew up with, the truth of our people, and that often immense torture our elders and ancestors went through as children (was) at the hands of the federal government and religious institutions,” Parker said.

The Roman Catholic Church and a number of Protestant denominations already have begun investigating their own roles in those boarding schools.

The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative report pointed to previous reports explaining that the government divvied up reservations among “major religious denominations.”

Those religious institutions and organizations were able to nominate new governmental liaison agents and direct educational and other activities on the reservations. They also were given tracts of reservation land to use for educational and missionary work and, at times, paid per capita for each indigenous child who entered the schools they operated.

Calling for Truth and Healing Commission

Several Catholic groups and Protestant denominations also have called for the United States to establish a Truth and Healing Commission similar to Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which issued its final report on its own residential school system for indigenous children in 2015.

They’re joined by lawmakers, who reintroduced the Truth and Healing Commission on Indian Boarding School Policies in the United States Act last year.

The act would create a commission to investigate, document and acknowledge the past injustices of U.S. boarding school policy. A U.S. commission also would develop recommendations for Congress to help heal the historical and intergenerational trauma passed down in Native American families and communities and provide a forum for boarding school survivors to share their experiences.

At the May 11 news conference, Parker reiterated the call for a Truth and Healing Commission.

“We must be able to locate church and government records beyond the Department of Interior’s reach,” she said.

Next steps identified

Other speakers outlined next steps for the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative.

Newland said the next volume of the initiative’s report will approximate the total number of children that attended boarding schools, the amount of federal support for this system and the total number of marked and unmarked burial sites at schools. It also will attempt to identify the names, ages and tribal affiliations of children interred at those burial sites.

And Haaland announced the launch of “The Road to Healing,” a yearlong tour of the country to give American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian survivors of the federal Indian boarding school system the opportunity to share their stories. It also will help connect communities with trauma-informed support and facilitate the collection of oral histories.

“This is not new to us,” Haaland said.

“It’s not new to many of us as indigenous people. We have lived with the intergenerational trauma of federal Indian boarding school policies for many years. But what is new is the determination in the Biden-Harris administration to make a lasting difference in the impact of this trauma for future generations.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Interfaith leaders, including a top White House official, gathered at Georgetown University May 10 to affirm engagement across faiths and urge more multireligious action to enhance democracy and diminish polarization.

“Especially at a time of deep division and threats to our constitutional democracy, governmental leaders, for one, must demonstrate both in word and deed that they are committed to equal rights to religious liberty, religious liberty for everyone in equal measure,” said Melissa Rogers, executive director of the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, at the launch of Interfaith America. Rogers, a Baylor University graduate, is former general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,

The organization’s name is new, after 20 years as Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based organization that has grown to include programs and service projects on more than 600 college and university campuses.

Eboo Patel, who founded the organization in 2002, pointed back to when “Judeo-Christian” work began in the wake of antisemitism and anti-Catholicism and “did good work for nearly a century.” Now, he hopes a broader array of people of faith will seek common good together rather than become further divided.

Interfaith America is expanding its work with upcoming events that Patel said will include former Vice President Al Gore in an initiative about the intersection of environmental stewardship and racial equity, and another with former President George W. Bush called “Our Vote is Sacred.”

“Will we become an ever-expanding city on a hill?” Patel asked, referencing the words of Jesus often invoked by politicians to symbolize America’s moral leadership. “Or will we be at each other’s throats?” He noted that his vision of that moral leadership includes mosques, gurdwaras, temples and secular humanist societies, in addition to Christian churches.

Assembled in a library at the Jesuit university that houses old church periodicals, representatives of the interfaith organization marked the new phase of its work with an array of blessings from officiants of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist faiths.

Rogers noted that Patel’s organization worked with her office on building interest and participation in COVID-19 vaccinations among religious communities, where sometimes hesitation or resistance was higher.

‘Never been harder’ or more important

“I don’t think any of us thought that this work would be easy—none of us did,” she said, speaking to a room including dozens of attendees, some of whom have been committed to interfaith relationships and projects for decades. “But I think we all know now that this work has never been harder. It’s also never been more important.”

Acknowledging she was “preaching to the choir,” Rogers added: “There’s so much that unites us if we are only willing to look for that unity and work side by side. At a time of too much polarization—far too much—thank you for continuing to defend each other’s rights, no matter the climate.”

Jim Wallis, chair of Georgetown’s Center on Faith and Justice, challenged the participants to work toward new goals of interfaith cooperation, from addressing global vaccinations and immigration to reversing climate change.

“Religion can be the biggest block to a peaceful, multiracial, multicultural, multifaith future,” Wallis said. “Or we could be what enables that to happen. And at our best we could even lead the way.”

MADISON, Wisc. (BP)—Heightened tensions from a leaked U.S. Supreme Court document indicating the possible overturn of the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision preceded attacks across the country on pro-life churches and pregnancy care centers, leaving like-minded groups on high alert while maintaining their positions on the sanctity of life.

“Our mission hasn’t changed,” Care Net-Madison (Wis.) Chief Executive Officer Sara Patterson said May 5, three days before the headquarters for Wisconsin Family Action was set on fire. The attack included the attempted use of a Molotov cocktail.

In addition to the fire, messages scrawled on its building included, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”

Patterson’s comments came in response to a question about pro-abortion protests in response to the leaked Supreme Court document. They now also address acts of violence, as the Wisconsin Family Action’s offices are one mile from Care Net’s.

The close proximity has spurred Care Net, where several Southern Baptists volunteer, to request more security.

“We’re OK so far but asking police to patrol extra,” Patterson wrote in a May 8 email. “Please pray!”

In Fort Collins, Colo., on May 7, a Catholic church endured its second bout of vandalism in recent months with what authorities called “a bias-motivated crime.” Local television reports confirmed the message “My body my choice” was painted on the church’s front doors. Windows were broken, and statues on the property were defaced.

Pregnancy resource center in Denton vandalized

The same day, the executive director for The Loreto House, a pregnancy resource center in Denton, arrived for work and discovered “Not a clinic” on its main sign and front door and “Forced birth is murder” spray-painted beside the front door.

The upcoming Supreme Court decision, if it is indeed reflected in the leaked document, directs abortion regulating power back to the states. Current legislation has 26 states, including Wisconsin, set to effectively ban abortion if that happens. Illinois would be in a different camp, literally surrounded by states in the first group.

“The impact is and will be significant to pro-life pregnancy clinics in Illinois as surrounding states are banning abortion,” said Doug Devore, interim executive director for the Illinois Baptist Children’s Homes and Family Services.

“In the state of [Illinois], we have already begun to see this because of abortion-friendly legislation (Reproductive Health Act of 2019). Additionally, bills such as the HB4221 are being created to discredit Illinois pro-life pregnancy centers.”

Increased security protocols

The Baptist Children’s Homes and Family Services clinic in Camri opened in December 2020 and sits in a rural area in the southern part of the state, less than an hour from one of the largest abortion clinics in Illinois and within 60 miles of three other states.

Challenges come not only from battling the image of “women’s health” promoted by abortion clinics but also from women pursuing medical abortions through the morning-after pill.

Baptist Children’s Homes and Family Services has been in operation since 1979.

“We welcome the opportunity to share the services that we offer across our ministry,” Devore said. “We care not just about the unborn child, but also about the mother and the entire family.

“We want to share the truth about the choices women and men are facing in an unexpected pregnancy. We offer pregnancy testing, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, labor and delivery classes, limited ultrasounds, parent training and post-abortion support services.”

Programs assisting mothers and fathers beyond a child’s birth are a mainstay at such clinics. In addition to prenatal care and counseling, Care Net provides education classes, a fatherhood program and a maternity home where women can stay for free and pursue goals such as a college education.

“We want them to be the best mothers they can be,” Patterson said. “We work with dads to help them learn how best they can support their partner. … The father’s support is very important, and we have men who work directly with them.”

Devore said Baptist Children’s Homes and Family Services has not received any threats but will continue to follow security policies and procedures already in place. Those include keeping doors locked and not seeing clients if only one staff member is present, a security system with cameras and alarms and reporting any threatening or suspicious behavior to local police.

“This would include protestors, threatening phone calls or any violence,” Devore said.

Call to prayer

Daniel Degner, director for the Church Ambassador Network of the Wisconsin Family Council, thanked state executive Leo Endel and the Minnesota-Wisconsin Baptist Convention for their support.

“Headlines over the weekend have made it clear that many pro-life churches and ministries across the country, as well as the conservative Supreme Court justices, have been targeted by pro-abortion activists,” Degner wrote in a May 9 email shared to BP with his permission.

A fire that started in the office of Wisconsin Family Council Executive Director Julaine Appling left fire, smoke and water damage.

There are several ways Southern Baptists can pray for his group and others, Denger shared with Endel. Praises should include that no one at the office was injured, the fire was spotted and contained quickly and that neighbors who shared their office building did not suffer loss.

Prayer requests include wisdom for staff, success for law enforcement during the investigation and for those who committed the crime to be brought to repentance and salvation.

Provided in bold, the email read, “Pray that God will be pleased to take what was intended for evil and use it for good.”

WASHINGTON—When Politico published a leaked draft opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito indicating a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, religious leaders reacted quickly to the news.

In a news release, the Supreme Court confirmed the draft opinion is “authentic,” but “it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case” of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Chief Justice John Roberts described the leak as a “serious and egregious breach” of the trust of the high court. Roberts said he has ordered the marshal of the Supreme Court to begin an investigation into the source of the leak.

Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., called the leak “dirty pool” and “horribly unethical.”

“There hasn’t been a breach of the court’s prized confidentiality and protocol like this in any recent memory, probably in all of American history, even the history of the Supreme Court,” Mohler said on his “The Briefing” podcast.

However, if the draft opinion reflects the court’s final ruling, Mohler called it “the greatest pro-life victory of the last half-century.”

“And when the Supreme Court hands down its ruling in coming weeks, the defenders of life dare to hope that this is indeed the court’s ruling, and, oh Lord, let us pray, may it be true,” he concluded.

‘Love, serve and support women and families’

Southern Baptist Convention President Ed Litton, senior pastor of Redemption Church in Saraland, Ala., said: “Christians have sought the end of Roe for nearly 50 years. We must pray now for the resolve of the Court to cement its reversal. At the same time, the church must stand ready to love, serve and support women and families in need.

“Let us thank God for the possibility of seeing the specter of this unjust ruling removed from our nation forever. And let us prepare for the next phase of pro-life ministry.”

J.D. Greear, past president of the SBC and pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, N.C., posted a message on his website to Christians praying for an end to abortion, saying that their work was not over.

Greear offered a prayer, which reads in part: “I pray that the people of Christ will join with the incredible work of pregnancy support services all throughout this country. I pray that the people of Christ will take up the painful and beautiful work of fostering and adopting, saying yes to children who have only known society’s no. I pray that the people of Christ will continue loving women in crisis, drawing them in rather than casting them out.”

‘Make abortion unnecessary and unthinkable’

Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, described it as “a breathtaking development in every sense of the phrase.”

“Assuming it truly remains a majority opinion—which could still change—it means we are one step closer to ending the … abortion framework that has taken more than 60 million innocent lives, fractured families, marginalized mothers and harmed this nation for nearly 50 years,” he said.

“At the same time, we must avoid losing sight of mothers who are in a cycle of fear or maybe even in crisis at this moment,” Leatherwood added. “Our words in this moment should not be ones of mere celebration, but also of care. Our care must alleviate their fears and show that the welfare of mother and child do not have to be pitted against one another.”

Elizabeth Graham, the ERLC’s vice president of operations and life initiatives, said: “It is not enough to make abortion illegal; we must work to make abortion unnecessary and unthinkable. This means we must address the underlying reasons why a woman believes she has no other option but to choose abortion. So regardless of what the court decides, I am hopeful the church will continue serving abortion vulnerable women, as it’s done for many years.”

Chelsea Sobolik, the ERLC’s director of public policy, said: “If the disastrous precedents … are indeed overturned, and they should be, there will be growing numbers of vulnerable women and children in need of care and support. The church must continue to stand on the frontlines of caring for women and children.”

Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said: “Evangelical commitment to protecting the unborn stems from our deep understanding that God created human beings in his image and that every human life from conception to death has inestimable worth. If the Dobbs decision remains unchanged, we will celebrate that citizens will have greater opportunity to engage in creating policies that impact women and children.

“We also recognize that after this decision, vulnerable women and children will need a lot of support. Churches should be ready to help.”

Religious freedom and reproductive freedom

Not all faith leaders applauded the prospect of Roe’s reversal. Rabbi Jack Moline, president of the Interfaith Alliance, said: “A ruling stripping access to essential reproductive care would betray the constitutional promise of true religious freedom, undermining the rights of people of all faiths and none to make health care decisions rooted in their own values—not those of their legislators.”

Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, tweeted: “I am in shock. This is what it feels like to have rights taken away. We are living through a regressive period and it is terrifying.”

ReGay Clark Jennings, president of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church, said: “Now—before this outrageous opinion becomes law—we must make our Christian witness to the dignity of every human being by insisting that we support the right to safe and legal reproductive health care because our faith in a compassionate God requires us to do so.”

Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said: “The foundational principle of separation of church and state safeguards our right to live and believe as we choose. Our laws do not allow anyone to use their religious beliefs to harm others. Allowing one person’s religious beliefs to dictate another’s personal medical decisions is the very definition of harm. We’ll say it again: Reproductive freedom is religious freedom.”

Compiled from reports by Tom Strode of Baptist Press and Emily McFarlan Miller of Religion News Service, with additional reporting by Managing Editor Ken Camp of the Baptist Standard. 

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Boston violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it denied a request to fly the Christian flag on a city flagpole.

In a 9-0 decision in Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the court ruled Boston essentially created a limited public forum by allowing groups to fly a flag of their choosing next to the American flag and flag of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts outside Boston City Hall.

The city makes City Hall Plaza available to the public for events, and it permitted groups to fly about 50 flags in 284 ceremonies between 2005 and 2017. However, it denied Harold Shurtleff, director of the Camp Constitution organization, permission to display the Christian flag.

The commission of the city’s property management department cited concern that flying a religious flag outside a municipal building could violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The district court held flying private groups’ flags from the flagpole outside city hall amounted to government speech, and the city acted within its authority to decline the request to display the Christian flag. After the First Circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision, Shurtleff and Camp Constitution petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled Boston’s refusal to allow Shurtleff and his group to fly the Christian flag outside city hall “discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, delivering the Supreme Court’s opinion on the case, wrote, “When the government encourages diverse expression—say, by creating a forum for debate—the First Amendment prevents it from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint.”

Breyer noted Boston “did not deny a single request to raise a flag” until it refused Shurtleff and his group permission to fly a Christian flag.

“We conclude that, on balance, Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech,” Breyer wrote. “That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridge[d]’ their ‘freedom of speech.’”

The city’s “lack of meaningful involvement in the selection of flags or in the crafting of their messages leads us to classify the flag raisings as private, not government, speech,” Breyer wrote. However, he added, “nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”

Connection between free speech and freedom of religion

John Litzler, legal counsel for the Baptist General Convention of Texas, tweeted: “While this case was decided on free speech grounds, it is inextricably intertwined with religious liberty. This connection between free speech and freedom of religion is clear from the language of the opinion.”

Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, tweeted: “The Court’s decision lines up with much of our @ERLC amicus brief, and is a welcome addition to free speech jurisprudence.”

In its friend-of-the-court brief, the ERLC—along with the Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, the National Association of Evangelicals, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Legal Society and others—argued the city of Boston violated both the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The brief called the First Circuit Court’s decision supporting the city’s refusal to fly the Christian flag “manifestly contrary to [Supreme Court] precedent” and said it demonstrated “a hostility toward, rather than a protection of, our religious and speech freedoms.”

In a public statement, Leatherwood said the court “resoundingly shot down the city of Boston’s incompetent attempt to abridge the free speech rights of an individual and his organization for communicating a ‘religious viewpoint.’”

“The reality is, had Boston continued with its established track record of approving every request that came in, this issue never would have been adjudicated,” Leatherwood stated. “Given the united admonition of Boston’s unconstitutional actions, I’m sure the city now wishes it had simply granted Mr. Shurtleff’s request in the first place.”

‘A free speech forum, in which religious voices are welcome’

In a series of tweets, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, wrote she was “not surprised, based on the unique facts of this case (Boston’s policy and practice) and questioning by the justices at oral argument.”

Breyer’s “relatively short and straightforward opinion” indicated Boston’s practice was “more indicative of a free speech forum, in which religious voices are welcome.”

However, she voiced concern about a concurring opinion by Justice Samuel Alito—joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—“who have a much more limited view of what constitutes government speech and a violation of the Establishment Clause.”

The concurring opinion agreed with the court’s judgment but took issue with analyzing the case on the basis of “history, the public’s perception of who is speaking, and the extent to which the government has exercised control over speech.”

“To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker,” Alito wrote. “The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own view or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in ‘regulation of private speech.’”

Alito concluded: “In my view, the minimum conditions that must be met for expression to count as ‘government speech’ can be identified by considering the definition of ‘government speech’ and the rationale for the government-speech doctrine. Under the resulting view, government speech occurs if—but only if—a government purposefully expresses a message of its own through persons authorized to speak on its behalf, and in doing so, does not rely on a means that abridges private speech.”

While she characterized Alito’s views as “extreme,” Tyler said regarding the court’s opinion: “The impact of this opinion seems fairly limited, maybe even to the particular facts of this policy.”

She noted the court’s opinion made reference to the policy in San Jose, Calif., that explicitly states flown flags are “an expression of the city’s official sentiments.”

“In other words, there is a way for cities to make clear that flag raisings constitute government speech. Boston didn’t do it here, but it can revise its policy for the future,” she wrote.

WASHINGTON (BP)—The U.S. Supreme Court weighed lengthy arguments April 25 regarding whether a high school football coach’s post-game prayer at midfield violates the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion.

The justices questioned lawyers for Joseph Kennedy and the Bremerton (Wash.) School District during oral arguments that lasted more than one hour and 45 minutes. The case involves the rights of public school employees to exercise their religious beliefs freely, as well as whether their actions as agents of the school violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The high court is expected to issue an opinion in the case before it adjourns this summer.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco twice ruled against Kennedy, who ultimately was joined by some players and others in the on-field prayers. In a 2021 opinion, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court said the school district would have violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause had it permitted Kennedy to continue to engage in his on-field religious exercise after games.

‘Accommodate the free exercise of religion’

The Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined in three friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Kennedy, two urging the Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit rulings and one in March calling for the justices to reverse the lower court.

“The Establishment Clause, as properly interpreted, does not override the government’s duty to accommodate the free exercise of religion on a nondiscriminatory basis,” the brief said.

Chelsea Sobolik, the ERLC’s director of public policy, said: “As Christians, our faith shapes the totality of how we live and the structure of our lives. The government must allow people of faith to live out their convictions according to their religious beliefs.

“Coach Kennedy was living out his faith in public and should have the ability to do so, without fear of punishment. Teachers, administrators, students or coaches do not shed their religious beliefs simply because they enter the schoolhouse door.”

‘Protect students’ voluntary expression of religion’

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the school district. It focused on protecting the religious freedom of students “from the press of government religious speech that government actors have attempted to recharacterize as private.”

The brief—jointly filed by the BJC along with the American Jewish Committee, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the General Synod of the United Church of Christ—asserts Kennedy was acting as a government employee who only had access to the 50-yard line of a football field because of his job.

“While the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses protect his religious speech and exercise in a variety of ways, the Establishment Clause does not allow him to use his position in ways that compel, pressure, persuade or influence his students to engage in religious activity,” the brief states.

The brief noted multiple parents complained their sons felt compelled to participate in the coach’s post-game, on-field prayers, even though they did not want to take part and their parents did not want them to participate.

“It was startling to hear the Supreme Court even consider whether public school officials can use their government position to lead religious exercises when this has been a settled question for decades,” BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman said.

“Our Constitution protects the religious liberty of students by keeping the government from sponsoring or denigrating religion. Reaffirming this long-held precedent is important to protect religious neutrality in public schools and to protect students’ voluntary expression of religion. Families across our country must be able to trust public schools not to interfere in their personal religious choices.”

‘Endorsement, endorsement, endorsement’

Representing Kennedy, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the justices when Kennedy knelt at midfield “to say a brief prayer of thanks, his expression was entirely his own,” protected by both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

The concerns expressed by the school district were not the safety of band members or the religious coercion of students, but the “sole driving force behind its actions has been avoiding endorsement” of religion, he said. “I think it is very clear what motivated the district, and it was endorsement, endorsement, endorsement, endorsement again.”

Richard Katskee, the lawyer for the Bremerton School District, told the high court, however, Kennedy’s actions pressured students to pray, divided the coaching staff, prompted bitterness toward school authorities and resulted in students being knocked down when the field was stormed.

Private speech does exist that “puts improper pressure on students to conform religiously or otherwise,” he said, adding the court would need to undermine previous decisions and “disregard students’ rights” for Kennedy to win.

Lawyer for Kennedy rejects Lemon test

During the arguments, various justices brought up the Lemon test, a standard offered in the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman opinion that says a law must have a secular purpose, not primarily promote or restrict religion and “not foster an excessive entanglement with religion” to avoid a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the court would need to rule on the Lemon test in the current case. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch asked whether the justices would be overruling Lemon if they did not apply it in this case. He also commented the court has not applied it in church-state cases for the last 20 to 30 years.

Clement described Lemon as “a stubborn fruit” and urged the court to “slice it in half.”

Lori Windham, senior counsel for Becket, said afterward the justices “were wrestling with the Establishment Clause and the mess that has been left by the Lemon test.”

“It’s time for Lemon to go,” she said on Twitter. “Under Lemon, ‘neutrality’ toward religion means no religion in public. This is as unconstitutional as it is irrational.”

The Supreme Court “sounds like it will protect Coach Kennedy,” Windham tweeted.

‘On very dangerous ground’

A leading advocate for a strict separation between church and state issued a warning, however.

A ruling by the justices against the school district could result in “the greatest loss of religious freedom in generations,” said Rachel Laser, president of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

“We’re on very dangerous ground if the Court is considering overturning decades of established law that prevents government employees from pressuring students to pray in public schools.”

Beginning in 2008, Kennedy—an assistant coach with the Bremerton (Wash.) High School varsity team—would walk to the 50-yard line after each game, kneel and briefly pray, thanking God for the players. Players eventually began joining him, and Kennedy, who was also head coach of the junior varsity team, continued the practice for the next seven years. He also reportedly gave motivational speeches to players on both teams who gathered around him.

Superintendent said coach likely violated Establishment Clause

During the 2015 season, the school district superintendent sent a letter to Kennedy telling him to refrain from the post-game prayers and from religious expression in his motivational talks to players. The superintendent said Kennedy’s practices likely violated the Establishment Clause. After abiding by the mandate for a few weeks, Kennedy returned to his former practice of praying at midfield and was joined by others.

The school district placed Kennedy on administrative leave as a result. The athletic director recommended the school not rehire him in 2016, and Kennedy declined to apply for a coaching position when a new head coach was hired for the next season.

After a federal judge dismissed Kennedy’s lawsuit against the school district, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco declined to grant him a preliminary injunction. The judges ruled Kennedy knelt and prayed “as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech, therefore, was constitutionally unprotected.”

In 2018, the ERLC joined eight other groups in a brief that called for Supreme Court review and repudiation of the Ninth Circuit in the case, but the justices declined to grant the request at the time. The case returned to federal court and worked its way back through the judicial system.

When the Supreme Court refused to review the decision in 2019, Associate Justice Samuel Alito and three of his colleagues explained in an opinion that “unresolved factual questions” made a decision at that point “very difficult if not impossible.” Alito said, however, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling might call for the high court’s review in the future.

After the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the judgment in May 2021, the appeals court rejected in July a request by Kennedy for a rehearing by the full court. He appealed to the Supreme Court.

Other organizations signing onto the ERLC-endorsed brief filed in March were the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, National Association of Evangelicals, Concerned Women for America, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, Anglican Church in North America, National Legal Foundation, Samaritan’s Purse, Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, Pacific Justice Institute, International Conference of Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers, Veterans in Defense of Liberty, Family Foundation and Illinois Family Institute.

With additional reporting by Baptist Standard Managing Editor Ken Camp.  

Advocates for international religious freedom praised the U.S. House of Representatives for passing legislation to hold accountable the Myanmar military for human rights violations and to authorize humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people.

The House passed the Burma Unified through Rigorous Military Accountability Act of 2021 with broad bipartisan support on April 6.

The BURMA Act requires the U.S. Department of State to report to Congress on the Myanmar military coup of Feb. 1, 2021. It authorizes humanitarian aid and civil society support to promote democracy, while imposing targeted sanctions for human rights abuses by the Burmese military, known as the Tatmadaw.

Now proponents of the BURMA Act are urging the U.S. Senate to approve the parallel version introduced by Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md. Currently, the Senate bill has not moved out of the committee on foreign relations.

‘Continue the fight for religious freedom’

“The plight of millions suffering from the Myanmar military’s senseless brutality, deserves bipartisan support and consideration from the Senate. The Myanmar people deserve to live in a free and just society, governed by and for the people,” a statement issued by the U.S. Advocacy Coalition for Myanmar reads. “We strongly urge the U.S. Senate to take immediate action to advance this monumental legislation.”

Randel Everett, founding president of the 21Wilberforce human rights and religious freedom organization, said his group is encouraged by the House passing the BURMA Act.

Everett, former executive director of the Baptist General Convention of Texas, noted the deep historic ties Baptists have to the people of Burma.

“Baptists have been involved with Burma for over 200 years, since Adoniram and Ann Judson were the first Baptist missionaries to arrive there,” he said. “Baptists must continue to stand with people of all faiths to continue to fight for religious freedom in Burma.”

Last September, the Tatmadaw shot and killed Cung Biak Hum, a Baptist minister in Thantlang who was helping a member of his church extinguish a fire after the man’s home was set ablaze during military attacks.

In December, Salai Ngwe Kyar, a pastor in the village of Thet Kei Taung and a student at the Asho Chin Baptist Seminary in Pyay Township, died from injuries sustained during a military interrogation in Magway Region.

Scott Stearman, the Baptist World Alliance representative to the United Nations, said the House action in passing the BURMA Act “represents a great hope for inducing change in Burma.”

Stearman has helped coordinate BWA advocacy on behalf of religious liberty and other human rights in Mynamar. He noted House passage of the BURMA Act followed Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s recent declaration that atrocities committed by the Burmese military against the Rohingya people of Myanmar constitute “crimes against humanity and genocide.”

“The BWA is working with its member bodies to advocate for the Burmese people,” Stearman said, adding that “the focus will now be moving [the BURMA Act] out of the U.S. Senate.”

‘One step closer’

Timothy Carothers, advocacy manager for Southeast Asia with International Christian Concern, pointed to the broad bipartisan support the BURMA Act received in the House as a positive sign.

“We commend the House for bringing this bill one step closer and are encouraged by renewed attention being given to Myanmar,” Carothers said. “Passing the House with both Democrat and Republican support sends the message that the conflict in Burma is not a partisan issue.

“This vote puts us one step closer to protecting Myanmar’s civilians and its ethnic and religious minorities caught in the crossfire. We are hopeful for a timely passage in the Senate.”

Much of the killing and burning by military is directed toward the Chin people, a predominantly Christian ethnic group in Myanmar.

Several church buildings in the southern part of Chin State—including the property of Kanpetiet Baptist Church, Emmanuel Baptist Church and Gospel Baptist Church—were damaged severely by bombs in mid-December and then looted by military. Tatmadaw troops also reportedly planted landmines to deter people who fled from returning.

Representatives of the Chin community in the United States applauded the House passage of the BURMA Act.

“This step toward the passage of this bill sends a good message to the people of Burma—telling them that the U.S. is committed to supporting human rights and seeking accountability for the violence that has occurred,” said Zo Tum Hmung, executive director of the Chin Association of Maryland advocacy group.

“We welcome the appointment of a special coordinator who can provide Myanmar with the proper attention needed to reestablish democracy, and we applaud the more than $200 million in humanitarian funds that could be provided to protecting refugees and those internally displaced.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Two items from the Jan. 15 hostage-taking at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville will be displayed at the Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia.

On that day less than three months ago, Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker welcomed a 44-year-old British national into the Texas synagogue shortly before Shabbat services and offered him a cup of tea. Midway through the service, the visitor pulled out a gun and took Cytron-Walker and three others hostage.

After a nearly 11-hour standoff, Cytron-Walker threw a chair at the hostage-taker, distracting him and allowing for an escape.

Both the teacup and the chair are now at the Philadelphia museum, where they will be exhibited alongside a video recorded with the rabbi and the three other hostages. The exhibit also names the three hostages: Lawrence Schwartz, Shane Woodward and Jeffrey Cohen, in addition to Cytron-Walker.

The standoff galvanized a national conversation about antisemitism. Cytron-Walker became a hero. He testified before Congress and advocated for increased synagogue security funding.

Last month, President Joe Biden included $360 million in funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant Program in his 2023 federal budget—doubling the amount of money in the program.

Separate from the Colleyville items, the museum is preparing for an exhibit titled “The Future Will Follow the Past,” guest-curated by New York-based video, sculpture and photography artist Jonathan Horowitz.

Misha Galperin, president and CEO of the museum, said the two items will be part of a broader exhibit titled “The Future Will Follow the Past,” guest-curated by New York-based video, sculpture and photography artist Jonathan Horowitz.

Galperin said the exhibit will include events that “bubbled up over the last two years” within the American Jewish community including racism, COVID-19, political polarization and antisemitism.

Other items will include a shrouded sculpture of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and a visual rendering of the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, site of the massacre of 11 Jews in 2018.

The Weitzman National Museum of American Jewish History has been closed to the public over the last two years because of the pandemic. It opens with a gala on May 1 and will open to the general public on May 13.

The museum, located in a glass-encased building just off Independence Mall in Philadelphia, has undergone a lot of change since it first opened 12 years ago.

In 2020, it entered bankruptcy proceedings, unable to overcome a debt burden of about $30 million. The following year shoe designer Stuart Weitzman rescued the museum with an undisclosed donation that has allowed the museum to buy back the building and secure an endowment.

The formal reopening will coincide with the annual Jewish American Heritage Month, celebrated each May since President George W. Bush proclaimed it in 2006.

The museum’s concourse level features a multimedia exhibit, the Only in America Gallery Hall of Fame. The inductees displayed in words and images include Irving Berlin, Leonard Bernstein, Louis Brandeis, Albert Einstein, Emma Lazarus, Golda Meir, Jonas Salk, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, Steven Spielberg, Barbra Streisand and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

While the United States has a plethora of regional Jewish museums, Galperin said: “We’re the only museum focused on national Jewish history. The others are focused on Holocaust or have a local context.”

Christian advocates for immigrants and asylum-seekers commended the Biden administration for its plan to end a pandemic-related order that has led to rapid deportations the past two years.

However, some want to know why Title 42 is remaining in place through late May.

Title 42 allows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to close U.S. borders to immigrants who lack proper documentation to prevent the spread of infectious disease. It permits the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the removal of migrants and asylum-seekers without immigration proceedings.

Fellowship Southwest—an ecumenical Christian network related to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship—issued a statement saying it “embraces the commitment of the Biden administration to terminate Title 42.”

“This administration understands that it cannot continue to expel migrants to Mexico and expose them to kidnappings, torture, rape and aggression,” the Fellowship Southwest statement reads. “The time has come to welcome all refugees, regardless of their racial or ethnic background.”

‘No valid reason to extend the policy’

However, Elket Rodriguez—an immigration attorney appointed as CBF field personnel to work along the U.S.-Mexico border—asserts “there is no valid reason to extend the policy even until May 23.”

“Title 42 has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that expelling migrants and denying them access to asylum processing does not work to avoid the spread of COVID-19, deter migrants from seeking safety or address increases in border crossers,” Rodriguez said. “On the contrary, expelling migrants encourages repeat border crossers and increases the work of immigration officials.”

Stephen Reeves, executive director of Fellowship Southwest and advocacy director for CBF, said Title 42 “has caused untold suffering among desperate and vulnerable migrants stuck in cartel-controlled border towns.”

Ali Noorani, who recently announced he is stepping down as president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum, issued a statement prior to the Biden administration announcement saying, “It is time for President Biden to end Title 42 and implement an orderly process.”

“Title 42 serves the goals of cartels and smugglers, not Americans. The administration can take steps to replace Title 42 with policies that better protect due process and ultimately end the current cycle of exploitation by criminal networks,” Noorani said.

“We can achieve border security through practical and humane processing, along with the strategic deployment of technology and personnel. There is no reason, public health or otherwise, to continue Title 42.”

Laura Collins, director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative, noted Title 42 “restricted access to asylum for those needing it and made the journey seeking U.S. protection more dangerous.” She also asserted it “decreased border security by lessening the penalties for migrants caught crossing the border.”

“Ending Title 42 at the border is the right thing to do, but it is not enough,” Collins stated. “Congress must seriously consider nimble legislative solutions to improve border security and the legal immigration system.

“We can effectively manage the migrants who seek asylum at our border, but we must be willing to use multiple proven tools rather than ineffective ones.”

NASHVILLE (BP) – La entidad ética de la Convención Bautista del Sur está exhortando al Congreso a actuar con rapidez para proteger de la deportación a los inmigrantes indocumentados traídos a Estados Unidos cuando eran niños, según se informó a los participantes en la Convención Evangélica 2022 sobre Inmigración el 28 de marzo.

El acto, de 90 minutos de duración, se celebró en forma de seminario web y en él se abordaron diversas cuestiones relacionadas con la inmigración y los refugiados. Contó con las intervenciones de los líderes de la Mesa Evangélica de la Inmigración (EIT), la organización patrocinadora del webinar, así como de especialistas en política pública y personas de otros países que ahora viven en Estados Unidos.

Chelsea Sobolik, directora de política pública de la Comisión de Libertad Religiosa y Ética (ERLC), dijo a la audiencia en línea que la necesidad de una solución legislativa para los Dreamers, el nombre dado a los niños traídos a través de la frontera ilegalmente, es aguda porque un juez federal anuló el programa de Acción Diferida para los Llegados en la Infancia (DACA) el año pasado. El gobierno de Biden ha apelado el fallo.

La ERLC y la EIT “han pedido durante mucho tiempo al Congreso que proporcione una solución permanente para los Dreamers (Soñadores) porque creemos que este es un asunto de justicia, que la Biblia es clara en cuanto a que no hacemos responsables a los niños de las acciones de sus padres”, dijo Sobolik; “Nuestros prójimos vulnerables no están adecuadamente protegidos”.

“…debido a la extrema incertidumbre de los tribunales, ciertamente sentimos un fuerte sentido de urgencia, y esperamos ayudar al Congreso a sentir ese mismo fuerte sentido de urgencia para aprobar una legislación permanente y bipartidista que proteja inmediatamente a nuestros vecinos de DACA”, dijo.

También dijo: “Es importante que recordemos que los Dreamers no son una abstracción. Son personas creadas a imagen y semejanza de Dios. …toda su vida y sus medios de vida están en juego ahora mismo”.

En 2012, el presidente Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva que establecía el programa DACA, que protege a los inmigrantes indocumentados que llegaron a este país antes de cumplir los 16 años. El DACA proporciona una ventana de dos años de protección contra la deportación y hace que los participantes sean elegibles para beneficios que incluyen el permiso para trabajar.

Andrew Hanen, un juez federal de Houston, dictaminó en julio de 2021 que DACA viola la ley estadounidense al suplantar la autoridad del Congreso en materia de inmigración. La orden de Hanen no afecta a los actuales beneficiarios de DACA ni prohíbe las solicitudes, pero prohíbe la aprobación de cualquier petición para entrar en el programa.

José Ocampo, que forma parte del personal de una iglesia bautista del sur en Charlotte, Carolina del Norte, habló durante el seminario web como beneficiario del programa DACA. Fue traído a este país desde México por su madre cuando tenía dos meses de edad.

Ocampo creció en Charlotte, confió en Jesús mientras estaba en la escuela secundaria y participó en el ministerio juvenil de la Baptist Church Hickory Grove, dijo. Ahora sirve como asociado de jóvenes y música en el campus latinoamericano de Hickory Grove. Ocampo es estudiante en el Seminario Teológico Bautista Southeastern en Wake Forest, Carolina del Norte.

DACA “fue una bendición porque sí me abrió la puerta para tener Seguro Social, para poder estudiar, y sin él no hubiera podido hacer todas esas cosas,” dijo Ocampo, graduado de la Universidad de Wingate, en Wingate, Carolina del Norte. “Así que ha abierto puertas, pero al mismo tiempo definitivamente ha empañado muchas oportunidades”, dijo.

Cuando se le preguntó cómo deberían responder los cristianos a los Dreamers, Ocampo dijo a la audiencia en línea: “Creo que la empatía ha estado por largo tiempo con muchos de los receptores de DACA, porque muchos de ellos sólo quieren ser escuchados y entendidos. Sólo les pido que caminen con empatía, caminen con gracia, porque en realidad muchas de estas personas necesitan consuelo”.

“Para nosotros, ser capaces de compartir el evangelio y luego ser capaces de vivirlo ejemplifica este increíble amor que hemos recibido a través de Cristo”, dijo; “Creo que eso es importante, es un primer paso, …podemos mostrar empatía y apoyo a través de simplemente amar a los refugiados, amar a los inmigrantes, a estos receptores de DACA. Eso podría contribuir en gran manera, lo crean o no”.

El esfuerzo por dar una solución a los Dreamers es solo uno de los muchos temas que implica la reforma del sistema de inmigración de Estados Unidos. Se calcula que hay 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados en Estados Unidos, pero los esfuerzos del Congreso por promulgar una medida integral han fracasado.

En 2011 y 2018, los mensajeros a la reunión anual de la Convención Bautista del Sur adoptaron resoluciones sobre la reforma migratoria que pedían asegurar la frontera y establecer “un camino justo y compasivo hacia el estatus legal,” con medidas restitutivas, para los inmigrantes indocumentados que ya están en Estados Unidos.

Galen Carey, vicepresidente de relaciones gubernamentales de la Asociación Nacional de Evangélicos (NAE), dijo que cree que es posible que la reforma migratoria se dé, “y nuestra convicción es que nos gustaría que ocurriera este año”.

Alrededor del 80 por ciento de los estadounidenses apoyan una reforma migratoria que consista en asegurar la frontera, ayudar a los trabajadores agrícolas y conceder un estatus legal permanente o la ciudadanía para los Dreamers, dijo.

“Y por eso pensamos que un paquete que combine esas tres cosas tendría bastantes posibilidades de obtener un apoyo mayoritario en el Congreso”, dijo Carey a los participantes en el seminario. Él cree que la clave será “la intensidad de la defensa”. Cuatro de cada cinco estadounidenses apoyan estas propuestas, “pero a muchos de ellos no les importa tanto”, dijo Carey.

Para ayudar a los evangélicos a abogar por la reforma de la inmigración ante sus senadores y representantes, la EIT está patrocinando los Días Virtuales del Capitolio los días 3 y 4 de mayo. La inscripción para el evento ya está abierta.

La ERLC y la NAE están entre los líderes de la EIT, una coalición de organizaciones y denominaciones evangélicas que se fundó en 2012.

La declaración de principios de la IET reclama una solución bipartidista en materia de inmigración que:

• “Respete la dignidad dada por Dios a cada persona;
• Proteja la unidad del núcleo familiar;
• Respete el estado de derecho;
• Garantice la seguridad de las fronteras nacionales;
• Asegure equidad para los contribuyentes, y
• Establezca un camino hacia el estatus legal y/o la ciudadanía para aquellos que cumplan los requisitos y deseen convertirse en residentes permanentes”.

Por Tom Strode, publicado el 1ro de abril 2022 en https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/espanol/erlc-insta-a-tomar-medidas-rapidas-para-proteger-a-los-dreamers/

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the religious liberty rights of a Texas Death Row inmate who wants his pastor to lay hands on him and audibly pray for him at the moment of his execution.

In an 8-1 decision in Ramirez v. Collier, the court ruled the state should accommodate the request of John Ramirez, who was convicted and sentenced to die for the 2004 murder and robbery of a convenience store clerk. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Ramirez asked prison officials to allow his spiritual adviser, Pastor Dana Moore of Second Baptist Church in Corpus Christi, to be present in the death chamber to touch him and pray when he is executed by lethal injection. Moore has ministered to Ramirez in prison about five years. After Ramirez made a profession of faith in Christ on Texas Death Row, Second Baptist Church allowed him to join its membership.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice denied the request by Ramirez, citing security concerns. Lower courts sided with the TDCJ, saying the agency has a “compelling interest in maintaining an orderly, safe and effective process” when carrying out executions.

‘Protected religious free exercise’

The Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction, concluding Ramirez had exhausted administrative remedies and he likely would succeed in proving his request was based on “sincerely held religious belief.”

While the court agreed the state has a clear interest in carrying out executions in a safe and orderly manner, safety issues do not justify denying an inmate the right to spiritual comfort.

“Ramirez is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because he will be unable to engage in protected religious exercise in the final moments of his life. Compensation paid to his estate would not remedy this harm, which is spiritual rather than pecuniary,” Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the court’s majority opinion.

Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the court determined Ramirez likely would succeed in demonstrating the state’s “categorical ban on audible prayer” and the prohibition on having a religious adviser in the death chamber substantially burden his exercise of religion.

The court determined it was unlikely the state could demonstrate “a compelling government interest” in refusing the prisoner’s request for a religious accommodation or that its refusal was the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest.”

‘Rich history of clerical prayer’ at executions

The court cited “a rich history of clerical prayer at the time of a prisoner’s execution,” and it pointed out the Federal Bureau of Prisons allows religious advisers to speak or pray audibly with inmates during executions.

The state’s concerns about safety and decorum could be handled in a less restrictive manner, the court concluded. For example, Texas could place limits on the volume of any audible prayer so that medical officials could monitor an inmate’s condition, and it could stipulate that the spiritual adviser’s touch of the prisoner be far removed from the site of any IV line.

Moore said he was glad the court “upheld John’s religious liberty rights” by allowing his pastor to be present to pray with him and lay hands on him in the moments leading to his death.

“Touch is a very meaningful and supportive way of showing compassion and love,” Moore said. “That’s why Jesus touched.”

Moore added he would be willing to abide by any reasonable restrictions if it meant being able to offer spiritual comfort to a member of his church.

“I am not there to be a disruptive influence,” he said. “I just want to be there to minister to John as his pastor.”

Affirmation of court’s decision

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission joined the National Association of Evangelicals and others in a friend-of-the-court brief filled last September.

The brief specifically appealed to rights guaranteed by the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

On Twitter, BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler noted the court has “wrestled with issues involving religious exercise in the death chamber” for three years.

“I’m pleased that a strong majority (8-1) held today that Mr. Ramirez is likely to succeed in his RLUIPA claim to exercise his religion in his last moments of life,” she tweeted.

Brent Leatherwood, acting president of the ERLC, called the court’s decision in Ramirez v. Collier “a significant affirmation of religious liberty.”

“The Supreme Court affirmed that religious freedom does not end at the execution chamber door,” Leatherwood stated.

In the majority opinion, Roberts specifically quoted an amicus brief filed by Becket, a nonprofit law firm focused on protecting the free exercise of religion. Eric Rassbach, senior counsel at Becket, applauded the court decision. 

“Even the condemned have a right to get right with God,” Rassbach said. “The Supreme Court recognized that allowing clergy to minister to the condemned in their last moments stands squarely within a history stretching back to George Washington and before. That tradition matters.”  

WASHINGTON (RNS)—South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson about her faith on March 22, an uncomfortable exchange that confirmed Jackson’s status as a Protestant Christian and highlighted questions about the separation of church and state.

The line of questioning emerged during the second day of Senate hearings to determine whether to confirm Jackson to the Supreme Court, with Graham leveraging the moment to air grievances about how Democrats treated past Supreme Court nominees.

After noting Jackson had mentioned her faith during her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before, Graham asked: “What faith are you, by the way?”

Jackson, who currently serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, replied cautiously: “Senator, I am Protestant,” she said, before adding, “nondenominational.”

Jackson has spoken publicly about her faith recently—both during her announcement as President Joe Biden’s nominee to replace Justice Stephen Breyer and before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday—but did not specify her faith tradition in either instance.

However, her response to Graham revealed that, if confirmed, she would be one of possibly two Protestants on the court and the only justice to identify as a nondenominational Christian. Justice Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic but attended an Episcopal church.

Graham blew past Jackson’s answer, quickly asking whether she could “fairly judge a Catholic.”

‘How important is faith to you?’

When Jackson attempted to reply, he interrupted to say he assumed she could before pressing her again: “How important is your faith to you?”

“Personally, faith is very important. But as you know, there’s no religious test in the Constitution under Article Six, ” Jackson began, referencing the section of the U.S. Constitution that bars forcing public officials to submit to religious tests.

Graham interjected: “And there will be none with me.”

Jackson continued: “It’s very important to set aside one’s personal views about things in the role of a judge.”

Graham said he agreed, but continued to pepper Jackson with religion-related questions, such as asking her to rank “how faithful” she is on a scale of 1 to 10 and inquiring how often she goes to church.

“I go to church probably three times a year, so that speaks poorly of me,” Graham said.

Jackson eventually curtailed Graham’s line of questioning by saying: “Senator, I am reluctant to talk about my faith in this way just because I want to be mindful of the need for the public to have confidence in my ability to separate out my personal views.”

Graham then launched into a short speech in which he decried questions Democrats asked of Amy Coney Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing to become a federal appellate judge. He singled out a question posed to Barrett, a conservative Catholic, at the time by California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who pointed to Barrett’s previous speeches and quipped “the dogma lives loudly within you.”

“The reason I ask these questions is I have no doubt that your faith is important to you, and I have zero doubt that you can adjudicate people’s cases fairly if they’re an atheist,” Graham said.

“You should be proud of your faith. I am convinced that whatever faith you have—and how often you go to church—will not affect your ability to be fair.”

Democrats largely avoided questions about Barrett’s religious beliefs during her 2020 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, although Republicans referenced it often.

In fact, the most direct question about Barrett’s faith came from Graham himself, who asked whether she can set aside her Catholic beliefs when acting as a justice. Barrett said, “Yes.”