Mississippi is adding the words “In God We Trust” to its license plate, and that has sparked some interesting debate. Much of that debate focused on an idea we have come to accept as gospel: that we have an American tradition of separating religion and politics. We do not. We have been misinformed and misled by generations of public policy, education, and media leaders on the so-called “separation of church and state.” The concept has been so pervasive that we generally accept the idea that it is inappropriate to bring any faith-based ideas to the public square. The idea that we should separate religion — of any faith or denomination — from politics is not only false, it is virtually impossible.
The arguments in favor of this separation arise from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, in which he used the phrase. However, that letter, and the metaphor, have been granted meaning that Jefferson never intended. With proper historical context and examination, it is clear that Jefferson, a major proponent of religious liberty, never envisioned anything like today’s interpretation. If anything, Jefferson’s metaphorical wall was meant to keep the state from violating the individual liberty of religious conscience. Washington and Lee University’s Sam Calhoun, Professor of Law and Associate Dean, put it this way: “[Jefferson’s] wall was meant to insulate religious belief and practices from legislative interference, not to separate religion from politics.”
In the 1947 case Everson vs. Board of Education, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The establishment of religion clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.” The late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with Justice Black. Rehnquist believed the Establishment Clause was only meant to prevent the establishment of a national church and the state giving preference to one religious group over another. It was not intended to exclude faith-based ideas from political discourse. In America, these ideas can be informed by any faith and any denomination, or by no faith at all. What we must reject is the Faustian idea that any public policy ideas that come from a faith-based perspective are invalid.
If we think about the public policy arguments that have made the biggest difference in improving our society and promoting individual liberty, freedom, and opportunity, we find religion and faith-based reasoning. Jefferson, Hamilton, Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and many others who opposed slavery made faith-based appeals on that issue. It is absurd to think that we should restrict our views of what is right and wrong to the private sphere only. In fact, we should question the motives of anyone who wants to dismiss another’s public policy ideas simply because those ideas are informed by a faith.
Yes, I’m a conservative. Well, actually, I’m a “conservatarian,” but more on that at a later date. Yes, I’m a Christian. No, I don’t want the government to endorse my ideas simply because some of them may be informed by faith. My argument is not that government should support a religion. In fact, it is the opposite. We need a more limited government. We need a government that is less intrusive in all matters. We should stop petitioning the government to solve most of our problems — including ones better solved by private institutions and free markets. The more we ask of government, the less freedom we have.
What I seek is government more in line with what Jefferson intended when he wrote about the wall of separation. He was intending to protect us from the state’s involvement in religion. He was not trying to prevent us from expressing religious views in public policy. In America, and in Mississippi, we must be open to diverse points of view, even to views with which we disagree. In that great tradition, we therefore must not dismiss views influenced by religion under the false notion that we are committed to a separation of church and state. We are not, at least not the way you think.
Jon L. Pritchett is president and CEO of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, the state’s non-partisan, free-market think tank.
Victory for charter schools in Mississippi
Mississippi Justice Institute and other defendants protect constitutionality of charter schools according to trial court
(JACKSON) – Hinds County Chancery Judge Dewayne Thomas ruled today in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of charters schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas ruled in favor of the charter schools and their parents, and against the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) Director Shadrack White, who represents the parents of charter school students, said, “This is a critical victory for the parents and their children who attend charter schools in Mississippi. Judge Thomas saw that the constitution does not trap my clients in their traditional public schools when public charter schools provide a better option. These parents know what’s best for their children.”
The charter lawsuit turned on whether the Mississippi Constitution allowed funding from state and local governments to be spent at charter schools. “Our case was simple,” said White. “My clients pay taxes, so they should have the right to take that money to a public charter school if that is a better option for their children. These schools are making their lives better. The plaintiffs in this case, however, had an extreme argument: that the funding for charter schools, agricultural schools, some alternative schools, and other types of non-traditional public schools should be barred.”
“As this case marches forward, I am going to continue thinking about all the good that charter schools have done for my clients, like Gladys Overton and her daughter Drew,” said White. “When we started this case, Gladys told us that, in her old school, Drew experienced nonstop bullying and a difficult classroom environment. Drew moved to ReImagine Prep, a charter school in Jackson, and today she is thriving. She was the most improved student in her class last year and, like every other student at ReImagine, is learning computer coding skills to prepare her for the workforce.”
“Students like Drew are who we fight for,” added White.
####
Growing up in the Jackson “bubble,” I knew I wanted to try something new when it came time to attend college. I received a wonderful education at Jackson Academy, but my views were rarely challenged or debated. Attending the University of Alabama was a dream come true, and I looked forward to encountering diverse beliefs and thoughts at a top-tier school boasting more national merit finalists than any other public university. I vowed, though, that I would never lose my faith or convictions.
I vividly recall an honors college seminar taught by an outspokenly liberal professor who asked us to write about something controversial. We could cite any source but one — the Bible. We could cite the Quran, Mao’s Little Red Book or Dr. Seuss. Just not the Bible. In this professor’s opinion, the Bible was not even history; it was just fairy tales. I questioned such intolerance, arguing against my professor’s double standard. I was berated in front of the entire class. I learned then that my views were not tolerated or valued in this class. Unfortunately, mine is not an isolated case.
According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the University of Alabama has a speech code rating of “yellow.” This means the university has ambiguous protections for free speech. Here in Mississippi, Alcorn State and the University of Southern Mississippi have a yellow rating, whereas Ole Miss and Mississippi State University have a green rating, which indicates no serious threats to free speech. Jackson State and Delta State have red ratings, which means they have “at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”
Consider this “Student Life” regulation at Delta State: “Words, behavior, and/or actions which inflict mental or emotional distress on others and/or disrupt the educational environment at Delta State University are strictly prohibited.” Many things can cause “mental or emotional distress.” President Donald Trump’s election continues to be a source of great distress for some college students. Should Delta State ban students from displaying Trump bumper stickers or wearing Trump T-shirts? Will the school’s computer servers block internet sites that post pictures of Trump? A regulation prohibiting “mental or emotional distress” is too vague and could lead to administrative actions that violate students’ First Amendment rights.
While both public and private institutions should protect and encourage free speech, publicly funded universities are legally obligated to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed this First Amendment right repeatedly: including for religious speech and activities (Widmar v. Vincent (1981)). Concluded the Court: “With respect to persons entitled to be there, our cases leave no doubt that the First Amendment rights of speech and association extend to the campuses of state universities.”
Many institutions have “vice presidents of diversity” who focus solely on that issue. We see diversity based on race, gender and sexual orientation, yet not so much on diversity of thought. Most university professors identify as liberal, and many go further left than that.
A 2016 Econ Journal Watch study that analyzed faculty voter registration records found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 12 to 1 at 40 leading U.S. universities. Such bias wouldn’t be a problem if we were on a level playing field. But all too often professors and college administrators use their positions of authority and power to intimidate and silence students like me. Many conservatives feel afraid of voicing their opinions because of the political correctness that plagues our nation’s educational system.
In addition, conservative guest speakers often face unfriendly welcomes and threats. Even former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed out of a commencement address at Rutgers University after fierce opposition from students and faculty. In response, then-president Barack Obama condemned Rutgers’ intolerance. “If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions,” chided the president. “Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities.”
Some on the left may have become hateful and violent, as we have seen from the Steve Scalise shooting and the Black Lives Matter protests, but we have to come together to protect free speech and free association. If we want a free nation that respects all beliefs, we must demand that students have the right to express themselves as protected by the First Amendment.
Daniel Ashford is a research associate at the Mississippi Center for Public Policy.
If we really want former prisoners to become productive citizens, take care of their families, and stay out of jail, we should cut the red tape keeping some of them from getting honest work.
Take the case of “Beth,” a Mississippi woman who made mistakes, served her time, but then wanted a better life. Upon release, Beth entered school with the dream of becoming a dental hygienist. After completing her coursework with honors, Beth discovered she was barred from obtaining a license. In Mississippi, dental hygienists cannot get an occupational license if they have a felony conviction; without a license, they can’t work in their chosen profession.
How many other “Beths” are out there? Too many. About 30 percent of all jobs in the United States require an occupational license. A nationwide study by the Institute for Justice shows that Mississippi requires a license for 55 out of 102 low-to-mid-level jobs. Only 4 states license more. Such licenses may make sense for physicians or other professions, but they aren’t necessary for many other jobs.
In addition, licensing requirements often bar ex-cons from getting meaningful, productive work. Here in Mississippi, licensing restrictions prevent ex-cons from becoming tattoo/body artists, embalmers, dieticians, or athletic trainers. What is the logic in preventing an ex-con from cleaning teeth or helping people stay healthy, or embalming dead people?
To its credit, the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) encourages convicts to get the skills they need to become productive members of society. One model MDOC is evaluating is a successful program at Louisiana’s Angola Penitentiary that is training inmates in HVAC repair, automotive repair, plumbing, the culinary arts, even seminary studies. Whereas half of Louisiana’s inmates return to prison within five years, only 1 in 10 inmates that have participated in Angola’s two-year vocational training program return. These results are confirmed by a study published by the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at Arizona State University. According to their research, states with high occupational licensing burdens have a recidivism rate (the percentage of inmates who return to prison) four times higher than states with low occupational licensing burdens.
At many of our prisons, we offer training in how to cut hair, do construction work and install carpet. All of the job training programs in Mississippi prisons do train prisoners for careers they are allowed to enter into upon release. Eliminating licensing prohibitions for ex-cons in other fields would create more options, reducing recidivism and reducing welfare dependency.
We need to stop licensing so many low-to-mid-level professions. We also need to be aware of the disproportionate impact licensing has on minorities. According to a recent White House report, “Laws restricting licensing opportunities for workers with criminal records have a disproportionate impact on Black and Hispanic workers.” The White House recommended adopting standards, as 25 states have done, that require licensing boards to clarify how policies that bar ex-cons from getting a particular license are relevant to that profession. A drug possession conviction, for instance, might be a reasonable basis for denying a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), but be irrelevant to working as a tattoo artist.
Consider the case of Richard Chunn, a bail agent with a felony conviction stemming from a 1981 guilty plea for marijuana possession. Chunn had a long and successful career as a licensed bail agent until a 2011 state law forbid felons from obtaining bail agent licenses. Chunn sued and won at the Mississippi Supreme Court. Citing a similar case out of Connecticut, the Mississippi court observed that such laws fail “to consider probable and realistic circumstances in a felon’s life, including the likelihood of rehabilitation, age at the time of conviction, and other mitigating circumstances” with the result that “many qualified ex-felons are being deprived of employment.”
Bureaucratic, ham-fisted rules shouldn’t prevent people from turning their lives around. Mississippi should follow the 25 other states that are opening the door to hope and opportunity by adopting reasonable licensing standards for those with a criminal conviction.
Daniel Ashford is a research associate with the Miss. Center for Public Policy (MCPP) and will be entering the MBA program at the University of Alabama in the fall
U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Reinstates Freedom of Conscience Law, HB 1523
Today, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” more commonly known as HB 1523.
Passed by the Mississippi legislature in 2016, HB 1523 is intended to limit government action against people who believe marriage is a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. It provides protection for photographers, florists, and other wedding vendors who believe a wedding is a religious ceremony and that they shouldn’t be forced to participate in a ceremony that violates their deeply-help religious beliefs.
Today’s ruling did not address the merits of the law, including the question of its constitutionality. The ruling was limited to the question of whether the plaintiffs were qualified (known as “having standing”) to challenge the law in court. The Court said the plaintiffs did not have standing, because the law never went into effect and had caused them no injury except that they were offended by it. “Injury in fact,” not merely being offended by a law, is a prerequisite to having standing in federal court.
The court called the basis of the legal challenge “quite radical” because it would abandon long-held rules for standing which “are essential to preserving the separation of powers and limited judicial role mandated by the Constitution.” The Court also observed, “HB 1523 does nothing to compel the behavior of these plaintiffs; it only restricts the actions of state government officials.”
After HB 1523 was signed into law by Governor Bryant in April of 2016, it was ruled unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on June 30, just minutes before it was to take effect. Attorney General Jim Hood refused to appeal that ruling, so Governor Bryant engaged pro bono counsel to represent him in appealing the decision.
Maine Governor Paul LePage and eight Republican attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of the law. As they point out, “The law addresses marriage and does not even mention sexual orientation… HB 1523’s plain purpose is to protect individual rights to free expression and the free exercise of religion in our pluralistic society - a laudable goal that governments in this Nation have pursued since the Founding.”
|
A new law creates transparency and requires warrants to keep seized property.
Under a new law signed by Governor Phil Bryant on Monday, law enforcement agencies will be required to report “descriptions and values of seized property, which police department seized it, and any court petitions challenging the seizures.
The law will also require police to obtain a seizure warrant within 72 hours.” If a warrant is not obtained in certain cases, the property will be given back to its owner. That from a report from Reason.com which published a critical expose on Mississippi’s asset forfeiture abuses in January.
Lee McGrath of the Institute for Justice(IJ) praised the passage of the bill. IJ had graded Mississippi an “F” on forfeiture transparency earlier this year but now says, “Mississippi is now the third state this year and the 19th state since 2014 to have passed civil forfeiture reform.”
 |
|
|
