Seven families sue to block AR law requiring Ten Commandments display in schools
The families said the new law 'pressures students into religious observance' of the state's preference and sends a 'religiously divisive message' to students, according to the complaint, filed June 11 in the Western District of Arkansas.
Four Northwest Arkansas school districts — Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville and Siloam Springs — are cited as defendants in the complaint.
'We are reviewing the lawsuit and considering our options,' a spokesperson for the attorney general's office told McClatchy News in a June 13 email.
In April, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a bill ordering the display of a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments and the motto 'In God We Trust' into law.
The complaint asks for an order declaring the law a violation of the First Amendment and an order to enjoin the school districts from complying with the act.
'This law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion — in a country that promises religious freedom,' Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a June 11 news release. AU is one of the organizations representing the families, according to the lawsuit.
What families said about the new law
The families bringing the lawsuit represent several differing religious beliefs, including Judaism, atheism and Unitarian Universalism, according to the complaint.
Many of them believe the required display will signal to their children that it is wrong to not be Christian or that they are outsiders for not sharing the same faith, attorneys said.
One of the families of Jewish background said the display will make it difficult for their children to 'maintain and express their Jewish identity.'
While they recognize the Ten Commandments as part of their faith, the Protestant version lawmakers want displayed in public schools is contrary to their beliefs, according to the complaint.
'They believe strongly that it is important to teach their children about the Ten Commandments within the context of the Jewish faith,' attorneys said.
Another family, who practices Humanist and atheist traditions, said the displays will remind their child of previous trauma experienced at school due to religious proselytizing.
According to the complaint, a teacher at a different public school got mad at their child 'for not believing in God' and told them 'the family's beliefs were wrong.'
This caused the child to feel pressured to 'pretend to believe in God while at school,' attorneys said.
'Being subjected every day to the Ten Commandments in every classroom and the library will remind (the child) of this trauma and further pressure (them) to observe, meditate on, venerate, and adopt the religious directives, as well as to suppress any expression of (their) nonreligious beliefs and background,' attorneys said.
While the new law is set to take effect Aug. 5, the families have also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to temporarily prevent implementation while the lawsuit is pending, according to a news release.
Similar lawsuits filed
The Arkansas lawsuit is the latest in a string of federal cases examining the constitutional separation of church and state.
In May, groups sued the state of Texas over a similar law requiring public schools to display the Ten Commandments, according to a May 29 American Civil Liberties Union news release.
In November, a federal district court blocked a Louisiana law ordering the Ten Commandments to be shown in public schools after nine multi-faith families filed a lawsuit, according to a Nov. 12 ACLU news release.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
10 hours ago
- USA Today
Lynch: Normalizing the abnormal is happening on both sides of the gate at the Open
PORTRUSH, Northern Ireland — The concept of 'normalization' wasn't invented in Northern Ireland but it was perfected here. From the 1970s, the British government worked tirelessly to present the image of an otherwise ordinary society being wrecked by mindless terrorists, conveniently positioning itself as a defender of norms instead of an active belligerent in a conflict that killed 3,500 people. Almost three decades after the Good Friday accord largely ended the violence, normalizing the abnormal continues, inside and outside the gate of Royal Portrush, where the 153rd Open is taking place. The R&A altered third-round tee times and logistics because the town of Portrush is hosting a band parade by pro-British Protestant loyalists that will begin as spectators are leaving the course Saturday evening. The Open was announced four years ago, so the parade's scheduling isn't accidental. Nor was there a debate about which one would give way when a major sports event with a global audience clashed with a parochial, coat-trailing parade. After all, this is a place where the government census asked those who identified as atheist to declare their family's historic religious affiliation, literally demanding to know if one is a Protestant or Catholic atheist. Loyalist parades are a staple of Northern Irish summers. The intent is to claim ownership of the street. Most are organized by the Orange Order, a fraternal group founded to maintain Protestant supremacy. They're frequently controversial and have often sparked violence when the Order insisted on marching through predominantly Catholic neighborhoods. Enormous bonfires are another feature of the festivities, and last week two drew widespread condemnation. One was built close to an electricity substation that powers Belfast's two main hospitals, another was topped with an effigy of migrants in a raft — a brazen example of the far-right racism that underpins much of loyalist sentiment. Organizers rejected calls to remove either and the government sat idle. Naked bigotry normalized as an expression of culture. The R&A's chief executive, Mark Darbon, was diplomatic when asked about the need to accommodate a loyalist parade during the Open: 'We are a guest in the community in which we operate,' he said, revealing that the R&A contributed to the cost of trying to ensure both events happen seamlessly. 'Security and the safety of your guests and the experience of your guests is always a prime consideration. This is no different,' he added. Lynch: With Open returning to Royal Portrush, tales of redemption sweep aside reality The parade organizers, the Portrush Sons of Ulster, informed followers on social media that 'we don't have as much control of the town as we usually would … We hope everyone understands what we're up against.' Uninitiated visitors in town for the Open — and some unaligned locals — will view the parade as a source of entertainment or amusement, jaunty flute music performed by ruddy-faced men gussied up in sashes and costumes, the entire spectacle suggesting a prank pageant for guys who'd struggle to get a dog to bark at them on dating apps. The Open largely exists outside of this binary guff that defines so much of life in Northern Ireland. It's unifying, a cause for celebration among people who for too long had more cause to commiserate. But even the Open is becoming a platform for normalizing the deplorable. The R&A deals with the Sons of Ulster by necessity. It deals with the Saudis by choice. LIV Golf has a hospitality location directly across the street from the Royal Portrush clubhouse, but then the R&A's writ doesn't extend beyond the perimeter of the course. It does, however, have control over what happens inside. Qiddiah, the entertainment mega project under construction in Saudi Arabia, has a hospitality presence on site and one of its representatives will be playing Royal Portrush on Monday as a guest of the R&A. Qiddiah is bankrolled by the Public Investment Fund and overseen by Yasir Al-Rumayyan, LIV's founding benefactor. Graeme McDowell, a popular native of Portrush, is working here as a commentator on the world feed for Sky Sports while wearing his LIV team apparel and regularly name-checking his employer. He was hired by IMG, which has deep business ties to the R&A. Coincidences? Possibly. Or perhaps the R&A is eager to position itself as more ally than antagonist to the Saudis. The process of normalizing the Kingdom's ambitions in golf began two years ago during the Open at Royal Liverpool, when Darbon's predecessor, Martin Slumbers, lamented the cash arms race in one breath while in the next attempting to cut to the head of the line for handouts. 'We have a number of large corporate partners that help us make this thing happen,' he said when asked if the R&A would accept a Saudi partnership in some form. 'The world of sport has changed dramatically in the last 12 months, and it is not feasible for the R&A or golf to just ignore what is a societal change on a global basis. We will be considering within all the parameters that we look at all the options that we have.' As of now, there exists no formal commercial relationship between the R&A and the Saudis, but if we're debating which parties on the board of the Official World Golf Ranking are compromised when it comes to deciding on LIV's application for recognition, there's circumstantial reason for concern about the R&A as much as the PGA Tour. The R&A is trying to be subtle, but that seldom works with the Saudis, and never in Northern Ireland.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- The Hill
Joe Rogan urges Texas Democrat to run for president
Podcast host Joe Rogan offered high praise for state Rep. James Talarico (D) on his podcast Friday, telling the Texas lawmaker that he should launch a White House bid. 'You need to run for president. We need someone who is actually a good person,' Rogan said at the end of a multi-hour interview. Talarico, who has been in office since 2018, has been considered a rising star by some for his Christian faith and popular TikTok account where he pushes back on Texas GOP policy on education and public schools. Appearing on Rogan's podcast is a coveted opportunity for politicians, notably for Democrats looking to recapture the young, male audience the party feels it has lost. Talarico is considering a dark-horse bid for Senate in a crowded Democratic primary that includes former Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas). He laughed after Rogan told him to run for president and pushed back on the host's suggestion. 'We were talking about how politics has become a religion. This is one of the ways it does. People put all their faith in a politician,' Talarico said. 'I've seen it with Bernie. I like Bernie a whole lot, but some people treat him as if he's a messianic figure,' the Texas lawmaker added. 'And Trump on the right, people treat him as a messiah in some ways. This is a problem.' Talarico told Politico that the invitation from Rogan came after the popular podcast host saw one of his videos on TikTok, where he has almost one million followers. In increasingly viral videos, Talarico has railed against a Texas bill to require schools to display the Ten Commandments and panned a new bill on private school vouchers. He is currently studying to become a pastor.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Don't Degrade Church With Politics
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In a court document filed earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service quietly revealed a significant break with long-standing practice: Churches will no longer risk their nonprofit status if clergy endorse political candidates from the pulpit. The change stemmed from a lawsuit brought against the agency by evangelical groups that argued that the prior ban on church involvement in political campaigns infringed upon their First Amendment rights. Their victory, though, may turn out to be a Faustian bargain: Churches can now openly involve themselves in elections, but in doing so, they risk becoming de facto political organizations. What may appear to be a triumph over liberalism could in fact be a loss, the supersession of heavenly concerns by earthly ones. Churches have long been divided over the proper role for religion in American politics. One approach has been to militate against the separation of church and state, insofar as that distinction limits what churches can do to exercise power in society. The IRS change, along with several others by the Trump administration, will soften that barrier, allowing churches to take on a much more pronounced role in electoral politics. Another approach has been to operate within the confines of that separation—which has produced some very noble results: a norm of discouraging churches from turning into mere organs of political parties, and an emphasis on forming the conscience of believers rather than providing direct instructions about political participation. A conservative 30 years ago might have preferred that latter approach, or at least said so. Back then, members of the right complained that Black churches frequently gave political endorsements or raised funds for electoral campaigns, and that the IRS neglected to enforce its now-eliminated ban, known as the Johnson Amendment. Yet by 2016, that dynamic had reversed, leading Donald Trump, then still a presidential candidate, to court the coveted right-wing evangelical vote by vowing to destroy the amendment once in office. A number of religious leaders took the implications of that promise and ran with them—an investigation by The Texas Tribune and ProPublica published in 2022 found that plenty of evangelical churches were offering endorsement despite the rule. The hope in paring down the Johnson Amendment is apparently that church endorsements will influence the outcome of elections in the right's favor. [Elizabeth Bruenig: Progressive Christianity's bleak future] But there's little reason to believe that church endorsements will do much in the way of persuasion. American churches have already undergone so much liberal attrition that, in practice, many right-wing evangelical pastors will be instructing their congregations to vote for candidates most members already intend to vote for. To the degree that broadly conservative churches retain some liberal members, endorsing right-wing candidates seems like just the thing to alienate them, which is a loss for those congregations as well as for the faith as a whole. Church intervention in particular electoral races is an efficient polarization machine. For that and other reasons, this policy shift doesn't really offer any benefits to Christians qua Christians. Providing political endorsements makes churches susceptible to powerful campaign tactics: PACs, for example, will have incentives to fund churches that reflect their agendas, meaning that pastors' livelihoods could come to depend on contorting their religious beliefs to suit political interests. Politically active congregants will also have good reason to lobby their pastors for certain endorsements, another source of pressure for church leaders to say that supporting a particular candidate is the will of God. And the practice of offering endorsements prioritizes accepting specific instructions from church leaders over cultivating Christian values and methods of reasoning that allow the faithful to determine which candidates to support for themselves. (Indeed, the Christian religion itself seeks to cultivate those very things for that very reason, rather than providing an itemized list of every behavior to perform and every behavior to avoid.) This is apparently why the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement that Catholic clergy will still decline to make political endorsements. 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel,' the release read, 'so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good.' That is a much more logical way for church leaders to proceed. Dictating which candidates to vote for is at once presumptuous, assuming much more about God's judgment than can rightly be accounted for, and also nihilistic, assuming that churchgoers are so ill-formed in their faith that they can't be trusted to figure out the right answers to these earthly, prudential questions. Granting the imprimatur of the faith to ordinary charlatans—the most common breed of politician—is ill-begotten, and borders on sacrilegious. Article originally published at The Atlantic
