BJC releases statements, commentary and analysis of pressing religious liberty issues to members of the media. Contact Cherilyn Crowe if you are a member of the media who would like to be added to our distribution list.
BJC's friend-of-the-court brief in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue explains that avoiding government funding of religion is a key protection for religious liberty. "This special treatment of religion stems from our country’s deep and abiding commitment to religious liberty for all," said BJC General Counsel Holly Hollman.
Avoiding government funding of religion is a key protection for religious liberty that protects against government interference in religion. BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue defending the unique treatment of religion in state constitutions.
"The cross matters to us as Christians. It has a powerful, specific meaning that is central to our faith. Non-Christians also recognize the specific meaning of the cross, which is why we stand with them in saying no, the cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice."
"While the government often partners with private religious entities in ways that meet pressing social needs, it must do so with respect for boundaries that separate church and state and protect religious liberty for everyone."
In giving such broad deference to President Trump, the Court neglects its duty to uphold our First Amendment principles of religious liberty. Safeguarding religious liberty requires the government to remain neutral with regard to religion, neither favoring one religion over another nor preferring religion or irreligion.
"Rather than determining whether the business owner's refusal to provide a service violated the law, the Court decided today's case based on the actions of the administrative body charged with enforcing the law."