[Lekooks] Discussing Religious Liberties with Attorney Jim Santelle

Tue Aug 25 18:37:28 CDT 2020

FYI, Jim

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee <no-reply at interfaithconference.org>
To: 
Subject: Discussing Religious Liberties with Attorney Jim Santelle
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 22:08:18 +0000

Dear Interfaith Friends and Family,              
This week Thursday, Aug. 27th at 7pm, Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee will host a live Facebook zoom cast featuring JIM SANTELLE, former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. 
 Interfaith Conference Facebook page
It's important for us to know what is happening with the law of our land, but it can be difficult to sort out the legal terms and jargon.  Jim Santelle wants to help us understand recent decisions of the Supreme Court during the 2019-2020 term, and understand how they affect us.  Below is a brief overview of two significant cases he will tell us more about, including other related cases brought into the discussion of "religious liberties."
Joining the virtual conversation will be IFCGM Executive Director, Pardeep SIngh Kaleka, IFCGM Program Director, Cherrie Hanson and our special guest, IFCGM Executive Board Member, attorney Ahmed Quereshi.

 Somewhat eclipsed by but no less important than any of the other landmark decisions of the United States Supreme Court in its 2019-2020 term are two rulings on the meaning and application of the so-called "religion clauses" of the United States Constitution. As initially authored by James Madison and George Mason, sanctioned by the First Congress of our new nation, and ratified by the states some 229 years ago, the First Amendment prohibits the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
In special reference to the second of those constitutional notions, Chief Justice John Roberts (writing for himself and Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas) concluded in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that the Montana Supreme Court had erred in invalidating in its entirety a state initiative that effectively granted tax credits to the families of those who send their children to private schools. Through a combined application of an administrative rule and the language of the Montana Constitution, barring government aid to any school "controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination," three mothers (the plaintiffs in the lawsuit) had been prevented from benefiting from the tax initiative when they enrolled their children in a faith-affiliated academic institution.
By his opinion issued on June 30, the Chief Justice explained (albeit not without strong dissent from the four-justice minority and public objection from some quarters) that the application of Montana's no-aid provision effectively discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend them, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. He wrote: "[The Free Exercise Clause] protects religious observers against unequal treatment [and against] laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status....[T]he no-aid provision bars all aid to a religious school 'simply because of what it is,' putting the school to a choice between being religious or receiving government benefits....At the same time, the provision puts families to a choice between sending their children to a religious school or receiving such benefits....They are 'members of the community too,' and their exclusion from the scholarship program...is 'odious to our Constitution' and 'cannot stand.'"
A bit more than a week later, on July 8, the High Court issued another "religion clauses" opinion in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, deciding whether the long-recognized "ministerial exception" to laws governing the relationship between faith-based institutions and their employers prevented the litigation of certain job discrimination claims. Two elementary-level teachers at religious schools in Los Angeles had sued their employers alleging discriminatory treatment--and, significantly, arguing that their professional training, academic credentials, and classroom instruction precluded their description as "ministers," thus placing them outside of the ban on lawsuits against faith-affiliated institutions.
Writing for a 7-2 majority (including Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Neil Gorsuch, Elana Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas), Associate Justice Samuel Alito determined that the First Amendment, protecting "the right of churches and religious institutions to decide matters 'of faith and doctrine' without government intrusion," does foreclose the adjudication of the teachers' employment discrimination claims. He explained: "State interference in that sphere would...violate the free exercise of religion, and any attempt by government to dictate or even to influence such matters would constitute one of the central attributes of an establishment of religion....There is abundant... evidence that [the teachers in this case] performed vital religious duties...[to justify the application of the ministerial exception in dismissing their lawsuits]....When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school's independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow."
In the wake of these important rulings of the Supreme Court on the intersection of faith-based and secular interests, the traditional notion of "separation of church and state," and constitutional doctrines of free exercise and establishment, the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee is sponsoring and presenting an academic, a-political, informative, and interactive discussion beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 27. Building on the decisions in Espinoza and Morrissey-Berru, we will be reviewing certain historical, judicial interpretations of the First Amendment's "religion clauses" and examining their applications in 21st Century America, including but not limited to an exposition of the content and import of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Jim Santelle

In order to unsubscribe, please click the link given below: http://ifcgm.facewebsites.net/unsubscribe-newsletter/?k=da36MZ)12h7zWHL
____________________________________________________________
Sponsored by https://www.newser.com/?utm_source=part&utm_medium=uol&utm_campaign=rss_taglines_more

Man Faces $560K Fine for Abusing 'Alaska Loophole'
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/5f45a1163ffd721153234st02duc1
>From a Single Get-Together, 20K COVID Cases
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/5f45a1165be7821153234st02duc2
Jacob Blake's Dad: My Son Is Paralyzed From Waist Down
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/5f45a1167739321153234st02duc3
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lekook.org/pipermail/lekooks_lekook.org/attachments/20200825/7a41aaae/attachment.htm>