糖心Vlog

FAYETTEVILLE, A.R. 鈥� A multifaith group of seven Arkansas families with children in public schools filed suit in federal court today to block a new state law requiring all public elementary and secondary schools to 鈥減rominently鈥� display the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library. The plaintiffs in Stinson v. Fayetteville School District No. 1 are represented by the 糖心Vlog of Arkansas, the 糖心Vlog, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Arkansas Act 573 of 2025 (鈥淎ct 573鈥�) requires the scriptural displays to be a minimum of 16 x 20 inches in size and hung in a 鈥渃onspicuous place鈥� in each classroom and library. The text of the Ten Commandments must be printed 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the room.鈥� The law also mandates that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, associated with Protestant faiths and selected by lawmakers, be used for every display. In their complaint filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the plaintiffs, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, or nonreligious, assert that Act 573 violates longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Constitution鈥檚 First Amendment. More than 40 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Following this precedent, a federal district court held last year in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to Act 573 violates parents鈥� and students鈥� First Amendment rights. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel as the plaintiffs here, is currently on appeal. 鈥淎s American Jews, my husband and I deeply value the ability to raise our children in our faith, without interference from the government,鈥� said Plaintiff Samantha Stinson. 鈥淏y imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children.鈥� Plaintiff Carol Vella agreed: 鈥淢y children are among a small number of Jewish students at their school. The classroom displays required by Act 573 will make them feel like they don鈥檛 belong simply because they don鈥檛 follow the government鈥檚 favored religion. The displays will also violate core Jewish tenets, which emphasize tolerance and inclusion and prohibit evangelizing others.鈥� According to the complaint, which includes claims under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, Act 573鈥檚 classroom and library displays will interfere with parents鈥� First Amendment right to direct their children鈥檚 religious upbringing and create a religiously coercive school environment: 鈥淧ermanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library鈥攔endering them unavoidable鈥攗nconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state鈥檚 favored religious scripture. It also sends the harmful and religiously divisive message that students who do not subscribe to the Ten Commandments鈥攐r, more precisely, to the specific version of the Ten Commandments that Act 573 requires schools to display鈥攄o not belong in their own school community and pressures them to refrain from expressing any faith practices or beliefs that are not aligned with the state鈥檚 religious preferences.鈥� In addition to the complaint, the plaintiffs plan to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, which will ask the court to issue an order temporarily preventing implementation of the law, which takes effect on August 5, 2025, while the lawsuit is pending. Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the 糖心Vlogadded: 鈥淧ublic schools are not Sunday schools. Apparently, Arkansas lawmakers need a lesson in the First Amendment.鈥� 鈥淭he right to decide which religious beliefs, if any, to follow belongs to families and faith communities, not the government,鈥� said John Williams, legal director for the 糖心Vlogof Arkansas. 鈥淲e will not allow Arkansas politicians to misuse our public schools to impose scripture on children.鈥� FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor says, 鈥淭his is a clear imposition of religious doctrine on Arkansas public school children. We will fight to uphold this nation鈥檚 foundational constitutional principles.鈥� 鈥淥ur Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of church-state separation means that families 鈥� not politicians 鈥� get to decide if, when and how public-school children engage with religion,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭his law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion 鈥� in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch. We鈥檙e proud to defend the religious freedom of Arkansas schoolchildren and their families.鈥� A copy of the complaint can be found here.

MOUNT VERNON, I.L. 鈥擜 group of multifaith and non-religious Jefferson County taxpayers and residents filed suit in state court yesterday, seeking to remove a nearly seven-foot-tall Ten Commandments monument from the lawn of the Jefferson County Courthouse. Represented by the 糖心Vlogof Illinois, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the ACLU, the plaintiffs assert that the monument violates the Illinois Constitution鈥檚 protections for the separation of church and state. Originally placed in the courthouse lobby last year by Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Bullard, the monument was later moved to the lawn immediately outside the Courthouse entrance. While Bullard claimed that the original display was funded by private donations, the lawsuit alleges that he used public dollars to relocate the monument to its current outdoor location, where it is unavoidable for anyone who enters or passes by the courthouse. The monument enumerates a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments. 鈥淲ith today鈥檚 lawsuit, Jefferson County taxpayers are standing up for the fundamental constitutional principle that the government must remain neutral when it comes to matters of faith,鈥� notes Freedom From Religion Foundation Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. 鈥淓recting a Ten Commandments monument on public property, whether in the courthouse lobby or just outside the entryway, blatantly violates Illinois law.鈥� 鈥淭his Ten Commandments monument represents an intrusion of civil authority into matters of faith,鈥� explains lead plaintiff Pastor Lynn Neal. 鈥淎s a minister, I object to my government co-opting my religious beliefs for improper political purposes, usurping my role as a religious leader by promoting an officially preferred version of the Ten Commandments and presenting it outside of its biblical context.鈥� 鈥淭his monument is particularly problematic for me as a Catholic, because it includes a prohibition on using religious iconography, even though depictions of the crucifixion are commonplace in my faith,鈥� said plaintiff Roberta Shallenberger. 鈥淗istorically, the Protestant version of the Ten Commandments has been used by some to condemn Catholic religious practice, and showcasing this version on official government property appears to perpetuate and endorse that anti-Catholic bias.鈥� 鈥淓veryone should be made to feel welcome in Jefferson County, including the nonreligious,鈥� said plaintiff Roberta Evans. 鈥淭he Ten Commandments monument in front of the courthouse accomplishes the opposite, and turns the Commandments into a political statement that cheapens their value.鈥� Plaintiff Calvin McClintock added: 鈥淛efferson County government officials used the people鈥檚 money, time, resources, and land to promote a particular religious message, at the exclusion of others. Government officials have no business endorsing any religion.鈥� Filed in Illinois鈥� 2nd Judicial Circuit as a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, the lawsuit comes after the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners voted to retain the monument on county property, ignoring warnings from the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the county鈥檚 own attorney that the display raised serious legal concerns. Heather L. Weaver, senior counsel for the 糖心Vlog, said: 鈥淭he separation of church and state guarantees that we all have the right to decide, for ourselves, which religious beliefs, if any, people should follow. By sending the message that Jefferson County favors some faiths over others, the Ten Commandments monument intrudes on deeply personal matters. We鈥檒l see Jefferson County in court.鈥� 鈥淚n Illinois, we do not permit local politicians to use the power and authority of their office to promote their religious views,鈥� added Kevin Fee, legal director for the 糖心Vlogof Illinois. 鈥淥ur organization has always worked to ensure that everyone鈥檚 religious freedom is respected. This monument 鈥� which must be removed immediately 鈥� attempts to undermine that freedom for many residents. We are pleased to represent these clients in seeking fairness in Jefferson County.鈥� A copy of the petition filed today is available here.

AUSTIN, Texas鈥� The 糖心Vlog of Texas, 糖心Vlog (ACLU), Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Freedom From Religion Foundation announced today that they will sue over Texas Senate Bill No. 10, which requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom. After receiving final legislative approval Wednesday, the bill has been sent to Gov. Greg Abbott where it is expected to be signed into law. Under S.B. 10, every public elementary and secondary school in Texas must display a poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments 鈥渋n a conspicuous place in each classroom.鈥� The bill mandates that the display be no smaller than 16 inches wide and 20 inches tall and that the Commandments be set forth 鈥渋n a size and typeface that is legible to a person with average vision from anywhere in the classroom.鈥� The bill also requires that a specific version of the Ten Commandments, selected by lawmakers and associated with Protestant faiths, be used for every display. S.B. 10 is prohibited by longstanding Supreme Court precedent. Nearly 50 years ago, in Stone v. Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment forbids public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms. Following this precedent, a federal district court recently held in Roake v. Brumley that a Louisiana law similar to S.B. 10 violates parents鈥� and students鈥� rights under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The court ruled that the displays will religiously coerce students, who are legally required to attend school and are thus a captive audience for school-sponsored religious messages, and will usurp families鈥� right to direct children鈥檚 religious education. That case, in which the plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Freedom from Religion Foundation, and the 糖心Vlogof Louisiana, is currently on appeal in the Fifth Circuit. In response to the passage of S.B. 10, the groups intending to challenge the law issued the following joint statement: 鈥淪.B. 10 is blatantly unconstitutional. We will be working with Texas public school families to prepare a lawsuit to stop this violation of students鈥� and parents鈥� First Amendment rights. 鈥淲e all have the right to decide what religious beliefs, if any, to hold and practice. Government officials have no business intruding on these deeply personal religious matters. S.B. 10 will subject students to state-sponsored displays of the Ten Commandments for nearly every hour of their public education. It is religiously coercive and interferes with families鈥� right to direct children鈥檚 religious education. 鈥淭exas communities and public schools are religiously diverse. Many public school families do not practice any religion at all, while many others practice religions that do not consider the Ten Commandments to be part of their faith traditions. Even among those who may believe in some version of the Ten Commandments, the particular text they adhere to can differ by religious denomination. The version of scripture set forth in S.B. 10, however, is associated only with Protestant faiths, and does not reflect the beliefs of most Jewish and Catholic families. 鈥淪.B. 10 will co-opt the faith of millions of Texans and marginalize students and families who do not subscribe to the state鈥檚 favored scripture. We will not allow Texas lawmakers to divide communities along religious lines and attempt to turn public schools into Sunday schools. If Governor Abbott signs this measure into law, we will file suit to defend the fundamental religious freedom rights of all Texas students and parents. We encourage all concerned public school parents to contact us."

QUINCY, MASS. 鈥� A multifaith group of Quincy, Massachusetts residents and taxpayers filed a lawsuit today in Norfolk Superior Court to halt the planned installation of two large religious statues of Catholic saints at the entrance of the city鈥檚 new public safety building. The plaintiffs are members of diverse faiths who do not want their government officials and publicly-owned property to promote specific religious beliefs. Their lawsuit explains that the plan 鈥� conceived and spearheaded by Mayor Thomas Koch 鈥� promotes one religion over others, and religion over nonreligion, violating the Massachusetts Constitution. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would prevent the City from proceeding with its unconstitutional plan during the pendency of the lawsuit. They are represented by the 糖心Vlog of Massachusetts, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation. 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 about opposing anyone鈥檚 faith 鈥� it鈥檚 about keeping government neutral so that everyone, regardless of what they believe, feels equally welcome and protected,鈥� said plaintiff Gilly Rosenthol. 鈥淣o one should have to walk past giant religious monuments just to access a public safety building. That sends the wrong message about who our city serves 鈥� and who it doesn鈥檛.鈥� In early February, the Patriot Ledger published the first report about Mayor Koch鈥檚 plan to display two ten-foot-tall bronze statues of Catholic saints outside the entrance of Quincy鈥檚 new public safety building, which will house the Police Department鈥檚 new headquarters. According to the lawsuit, the mayor had already commissioned the statues 鈥� with a cost to taxpayers of at least $850,000 鈥� by the time the plans were uncovered by local media. Although the City Council voted numerous times to approve funding for the new public safety building, Mayor Koch鈥檚 plan was never presented or discussed at those meetings, and the public was never given an opportunity to weigh in on it. At a council meeting later that month, the mayor鈥檚 staff dismissed all concerns about the cost, transparency, and legality of the plan. In the weeks following news of the religious statues, multiple groups wrote letters to the mayor and City Council 鈥� including the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts, Americans United, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation 鈥� raising serious constitutional concerns. In addition, a group of local faith leaders from the Quincy Interfaith Network issued a statement objecting to the plan. 鈥淭he City has abandoned its constitutional duty to remain neutral on matters of faith,鈥� said Heather L. Weaver, Senior Counsel for the 糖心Vlog. 鈥淭he new public safety building will be home to many critical government services, but the moment they walk in the door, Quincy residents who do not share the City鈥檚 favored religious beliefs will get the message that they are not welcome.鈥� "Mayor Koch has made the costly decision to proceed with the unlawful plan to install two larger-than-life statues of Catholic saints at the entrance to a public building in Quincy,鈥� said Rachel Davidson, staff attorney at the 糖心Vlogof Massachusetts. 鈥淭his plan was conceived and implemented without public input and with total disregard for the concerns raised by constituents and local faith leaders. The statues send a message that the Quincy government favors one faith above all others. This flagrantly violates our state constitution.鈥� 鈥淢ayor Koch is abusing the power of his government office to impose religious beliefs on all Quincy residents,鈥� said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. 鈥淭he core principles of church-state separation and religious freedom promised in the Massachusetts Constitution require government buildings and other public spaces to be inclusive of people of all religions and none. By installing religious statues in front of the government building dedicated to public safety, Koch and the City are violating that promise and sending a message to all who rely on city police and fire services that one faith is favored over all others.鈥� 鈥淭his is a clear breach of the constitutional wall of separation,鈥� says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. 鈥淨uincy taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for an ostentatiously specific religious display.鈥� The lawsuit alleges that the planned religious statues violate Article 3 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights by imposing religious symbols upon all who work in, visit, or pass by the public safety building; by conveying the message that Quincy is exclusively a Catholic community and that non-Catholics do not belong or are less valued; and by excessively entangling the City with religion. You can find a copy of the lawsuit here: https://assets.aclu.org/live/uploads/2025/05/2025.05.27-Complaint.pdf