Christian Nationalism is Coming for You

“[Christian Nationalists’] 20-year court packing scheme has resulted in decisions that imprint Christianity in society as privileged, and they use the court system to create exceptions for them. The recent decisions allowing churches to violate public safety standards and continue spreading Covid is a clear example.  Now our state legislators want to enshrine that favoritism in law with HB2648.  The bill passed the House 38-22 with seven Democrats voting with the Republican majority. Exemptions from the law for “sincerely held religious beliefs” are simply code to be able to discriminate. Religious doctrine said that it was permissible for one people to enslave another, that the races could not intermarry, and that a certain race could not join the church. The court has declined to question these so those called “beliefs.”  Religious freedom to the Christian nationalists means privilege for those with the “right” religion.  To claim they want neutrality is a farce when one sect already has a leg up….

…America is special not because we are a chosen people, but because we did not organize a government based on religion. The countries that are based on religion – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan – are notorious for their violations of human rights, violence toward women, and silencing of those who disagree. Christian nationalism fueled the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.  We must not underestimate its danger to our democracy.”

Read the entire op-ed by Secular AZ Legal Director Dianne Post in the March 2, 2021 Arizona Capitol Times.

8th Annual Secular Day at the Capitol

Curious about what happens at the legislature? Want to meet your lawmaker and connect with other people who care about secular government? Tired of religious intrusions into state statute? Then we have the virtual event for you!

Join us Monday, March 15th for our 8th Annual Secular Day at the Capitol.

COVID-19 has restricted us to an online forum but we are still here and we are still asking lawmakers to SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE!

We are contemplating hosting an in-person, outdoor ,covid-safe SECULAR AZ visibility event at the Capitol to coincide with our virtual day. Please let us know in the registration form if this is something you’d like to do. If we have enough interest we will move forward. If we don’t, we don’t. What can we say – the weather is lovely, Secular AZ folks wear masks properly, and we value science!

Monday, March 15, 10AM – 2:00PM (flexibility and breaks built in so you can participate while tending to children, working, etc)

(Tentative) Schedule:
Welcome & Issue Overview & Meeting Practice
Breakout Rooms: 15 minute meetings with lawmakers; guest speakers in breakout rooms
Lunch Panel & Q&A
Secular Invocations and Introductions from the House and Senate
Closing/ end of day / call to action


We are offering a legislative pre-training before Secular Day starts at 10am. Please sign up for this training in addition to the Day at the Capitol. Registration is separate for this meeting; click here to register for this free training.


Help us raise ALL of our voices at the Capitol! Sponsor Secular Day… and support our advocacy and activism at the Arizona State Legislature. Sponsors will be recognized on our website, in our newsletters, and at the event.

Since we can’t do in-person tabling this year, organizations that sponsor Secular Day will get time to speak at the event to provide updates on group activities. Click here to become a sponsor!



“Warriors for Christ” Fight Against Racial Equality

By Sophie Carney, Secular Communities for Arizona Legal Intern

On June 5, 2020, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser had “Black Lives Matter” painted in block letters two blocks long and the entire width of 16th Street NW in Washington D.C. leading up to the White House, a site of prominence during summer protests in response to the execution of George Floyd at the hands of officers from the Minneapolis Police Department. A group opposing the mural filed suit against the Mayor, seeking to remove the mural from the road. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia promptly threw out the Complaint.

As one could imagine, opposition to the mural arose from many places. Almost immediately, the Washington D.C. Chapter of BLM Global Network posted to their Twitter account about their opinion on the display stating, “[t]his is a performative distraction from real policy changes. Bowser has consistently been on the wrong side of [Black Lives Matter DC] history. This is to appease white liberals while ignoring our demands. Black Lives Matter means defund the police.”

As for the other side of the movement, Pastor Rick Penkoski, Chris Sevier, and Tex Christopher filed a lawsuit against the Mayor of Washington D.C. These three plaintiffs make up the leadership of “Warriors for Christ”, a religious group that is included in the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of extremist hate groups known for anti-LGBTQ speech.

The plaintiffs argue that the painting is a sign that non-black Christians are no longer welcome in the D.C. area. The painting, they claim, is a declaration of Washington D.C.’s preference for Black citizens who practice a secular and humanistic lifestyle. They see this favoritism as a  violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. In response to this lawsuit, Mayor Muriel Bowser and her defense team victoriously argued that the Plaintiffs lacked the ability to bring this suit in the first place, let alone argue it all the way to a win. 

Questions of Standing

The Establishment Clause, found within the First Amendment of the Constitution, generally prohibits Congress from creating laws that establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion. The primary cause of action in this case arose under this Clause, leading the Mayor to argue that Plaintiffs lacked standing for this claim. Standing, in the legal world, can be defined as a party’s ability to prove that they have the right to sue.  The argument over standing in this case was not just based on what would be the proper court to have brought this issue in front of, but whether the plaintiffs were even entitled to bring the issue at all. Plaintiffs in this case asserted their standing for this Complaint under the idea of “taxpayer standing.” That is, they pay taxes in the District of Columbia and that provides the foundation for seeking accountability from the District’s government. 

However, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in Flast v. Cohen, those attempting to establish standing based on their position as taxpayers must meet two requirements. First, as enumerated in the decision itself, the unconstitutional action being complained about must be, “an exercise of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, §8, of the Constitution.” The second requirement is that the taxpayers must, “establish a nexus between that [taxpayer] statue and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged.” Given these two requirements, Mayor Bowser aptly argued that Plaintiffs would not be able to establish the requisite standing for their complaint under the Establishment Clause. The rule clearly states that an exercise of congressional power is required for the Court to find that a plaintiff has standing. This painting of the street in Washington D.C. by municipal employees was in no way an exercise of congressional power.

Offended Observers?

The leaders of the Warriors of Christ argued in the alternative that their claim under the Establishment Clause could stand on the “offended observer theory.” This cannot be true. Mayor Bowser, the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Washington D.C. Circuit Court all agreed that there is no legal basis in this theory. Further, making an argument for standing under this theory was unwise for these religious zealots who stand opposed to the BLM movement, as many BLM activists have shown public outrage at the continued presence of racist anti-BLM installments across the country such as Confederate war “hero” statutes and memorials that remain standing. If the religious community in this case was successful in their argument for standing under this theory, it would have set a precedent that would allow the BLM movement to bring suit against offensive public works like those previously mentioned since they too were “offended observers.”

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ensures, in pertinent part, that, “[n]o state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States […] nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These self-proclaimed religious “warriors”, in their complaint, argued that the BLM Mural is so offensive to them that it makes them feel as though they are “second class citizens,” because of the impression of favoritism it portrays toward the Black community. While such feelings may be valid in in other circumstances, the Supreme Court historically holds that a party cannot base their standing for an Equal Protection Clause challenge on injury caused by being offended by racial discrimination.

Discriminatory Messaging vs. Discriminatory Treatment

The Court makes a distinction between discriminatory messaging and being personally subjected to discriminatory treatment. This was established in Moore v. Bryant, a case in which an African American lawyer sought an Equal Protection challenge to the Mississippi state flag because of its incorporation of the Confederate flag. The religious zealots in this case are now suffering the same fate forced upon Mr. Moore. Their allegation that the BLM Mural is threatening and offensive might be a result of discriminatory messaging but, until there is a showing that Mayor Bowser or the city of Washington D.C. has engaged in discriminatory behavior, there is no standing for Plaintiff’s Equal Protection Clause challenge to the BLM Mural. 

Mayor Muriel Bowser did not stop at the painting of 16th street. Even in the face of backlash, she was successful in changing the name of the two-block-long pedestrian area surrounding the “Black Lives Matter” mural to “Black Lives Matter” Plaza. Depending on who you ask, the name may be seen as performative, it may be considered offensive, or anywhere in between, but one thing is certain so far: Mayor Bowser is not going to back down from her fight for Black Lives Matter.

As for the religious extremists who tried to make the mural go away, they will have to continue to live in a world where people who do not look, think, or act like them enjoy the same rights they do, even if it offends them. 

Does Separation of Church and State Mean Kids Can’t Pray in Public Schools?

Myth: Thanks to separation of church and state, kids can’t pray in public schools.

Some Arizona lawmakers have made headlines claiming that we don’t need to keep guns out of schools; we need to bring more prayer in.  Once again, a legislator has introduced a bill (HB2060) to mandate a quiet reflection and moral reasoning time as a way to stick the camel’s nose under the tent.

But as long as there are algebra tests, there will be prayer in school.  What the U.S. Supreme Court banned in 1962 (Engel v. Vitale)  and 1963 was government-sponsored, compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools.  Voluntary prayer was never banned but, given the diversity of religions in the U.S. (1,500 to 2,000 estimated), it is a very good idea to prohibit government-sponsored or compulsory prayer.  

Prior to those rulings, Jewish and Muslim kids were required to recite Christian prayers.  Catholics were required to listen to verses from the King James version of the Bible that was written by the Anglican church that ridiculed the beliefs of the Catholics.  The non-religious were required to accept it all.  Parents rights regarding how and in what religion to bring up their children were ignored.

Legitimate Educational Goals v. Coercion and Retaliation

Today, young people can pray and read religious books in a non-disruptive way but no one can be compelled or singled out for refusing to do so.  Kids can set up religious clubs in non-instructional time but they have to be open to all, student run, and voluntary. Religion can be discussed in classes like history, art, literature and others. The Bible and other religious texts can even be read as part of a comparative religion course. As long as the approach has legitimate educational goals, public school officials will not get into trouble for teaching about religion.  This is truly the American way, not coercion and retaliation.  

It’s the Bible, after all, that says in Matthew 6:5-6, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others.”  Those advocating for public prayer in the school ought to pay attention to their own good books. 

The hysteria about praying in schools is just that, hysteria, or perhaps worse.  It is the shifting of blame from the state legislature’s refusal to regulate guns as the vast majority of Arizonans want to, claiming that the problem is prayer.  It’s the shifting of blame from the state legislature’s depletion of funding for our schools, to blaming our schools’ poor scholastic record on lack of prayer.  Those making these claims would not argue that the Koran should be read in class or the Torah or the Humanist Manifesto.  

In “Religion in the Public Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law,” 35 religious and civil liberties organizations give the following summary of the rights of students to express their faith in a public school:  Students have the right to pray individually or in groups or to discuss their religious views with their peers so long as they are not disruptive.

The Premise and Promise of Democratic Pluralism

Because the Establishment Clause does not apply to purely private speech, students enjoy the right to read their Bibles or other scriptures, say grace before meals, pray before tests, and discuss religion with other (willing) student listeners.

In the classroom, students have the right to pray quietly, except when required to be actively engaged in school activities (e.g. students may not decide to pray just as a teacher calls on them).

In informal settings, such as the cafeteria or in the halls, students may pray either audibly or silently, subject to the same rules of order as apply to other speech in these locations.

However, the right to engage in voluntary prayer does not include, for example, the right to have a captive audience listen or to compel other students to participate. (Student Religious Expression in Public Schools: United States Department of Education Guidelines) 

So first, know the facts: prayer is not excluded, it just cannot be government-sponsored or compelled. 

And second, the rules that apply to one, apply to all.  The Williamsburg Charter that was signed in 1988 by Presidents Carter and Ford, two then-living Chief Justices, and 200 other leaders states in part: 

We affirm that a right for one is a right for another and a responsibility for all. A right for a Protestant is a right for an Eastern Orthodox is a right for a Catholic is a right for a Jew is a right for a Humanist is a right for a Mormon is a right for a Muslim is a right for a Buddhist—and for the followers of any other faith within the wide bounds of the republic. 

That rights are universal and responsibilities mutual is both the premise and the promise of democratic pluralism. The First Amendment, in this sense, is the epitome of public justice and serves as the golden rule for civic life.

Rights are best guarded and responsibilities best exercised when each person and group guards for all others those rights they wish guarded for themselves. 


Dianne Post

Legal Director, Secular Communities for Arizona

Virtual Memorial in Honor of Mark Nisski

Please join us at a virtual memorial service for Secular AZ Board Member and friend Mark Nisski.

Late last year, Arizona’s secular community lost a bright light. Mark’s enthusiasm, intellectual curiosity, energy and kindness are sorely missed.

On Saturday, January 30 at 4pm, Mark’s family, friends and the secular community will gather together on Zoom to honor his memory.

Join Zoom Meeting:
Meeting ID: 825 9122 5523
Passcode: 735733

Does This Communion Come with COVID?

Does This Communion Come with COVID?

by Sophie Carney, Secular Communities for Arizona Legal Intern

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.68 on March 7, 2020 which, in part, placed limitations on the capacity allowances for houses of worship. In the zones of New York most severely affected by COVID-19, houses of worship were to be subjected to a capacity limit of 25% of maximum capacity or 10 people, whichever was fewer.

In moderately affected zones, houses of worship were to be subjected to a capacity limit of 33% of maximum capacity or 25 people, whichever was fewer. The least affected zones were to be subjected to a capacity limit for houses of worship of 50% of maximum capacity. 

In response to this executive order, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York and Agudath Israel of America and its affiliated entities applied for injunctive relief in order to prevent Governor Cuomo from enforcing Executive Order 202.68 while they seek appellate review of the Order.

Their applications were based on the idea that the Executive Order violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment holds that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] … .” 

Under the law, plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions have to prove that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tip in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. The Supreme Court held that both the Roman Catholic Diocese and Agudath Israel of America met all of these standards for relief.

To succeed on the merits, the applicants had to make a showing that the restrictions they are challenging are not neutral. The Supreme Court held that the applicants were able to show this through the lack of evidence that they have contributed to the spread of COVID-19 and the admittedly more relaxed rule for other non-religious services that have been deemed “essential.” For example, the order allows certain large retail stores to allow, “literally hundreds of people shopping there on any given day,” while restricting houses of worship to 10 or 25 people.

The Supreme Court voted in the majority that, “[t]here can be no question that the challenged restrictions, if enforced, will cause irreparable harm.” The basis for this opinion is that those who want to go to religious services in person will suffer harm that will never be fixed, such as Roman Catholic Diocese patrons’ inability to receive communion and Orthodox Jewish peoples’ inability to meet their requirement for personal attendance. 

Finally, the Court held that the granting of the applicants desired relief will not harm the public. This, according to the Supreme Court, is because the State has not claimed nor shown that the public health would be in jeopardy if less restrictive measures were imposed.

Free Religious Exercise? Not in Question

The dissenting opinions in this case provide a different viewpoint on the matter. Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor’s dissent points out that free religious exercise is an important constitutional right, but it is not being called into question in this case. The Constitution, Sotomayor writes, “does not forbid States from responding to public health crises through regulations that treat religious institutions equally or more favorable than comparable secular institutions … .”

This is the case for New York Executive Order 202.68, which treats houses of worship far more favorably than their secular counterparts. For example, large gathering places such as movie theaters and concert venues have been forced to shut down completely and places like grocery stores and shopping malls have capacity limits, mask mandates, and even special hours for people who are more likely to suffer from COVID-19. These types of ordinances have been upheld in lower courts across the country and should serve as a precedent for all places that seek to have large gatherings, whether it is a house of worship or not.  

Further, the hypocrisy in applying heightened scrutiny to Cuomo’s Executive Order is illuminated by the Court’s failure to apply heightened scrutiny to clearly religious-based laws such as Donald Trump’s self-described “Muslim Ban” that was designed to thoroughly prohibit Muslim people from entering the United States. If the Executive Order that Cuomo proposed, which does not specify any one religion or even treat houses of worship more harshly than their secular counterparts, is not neutral enough to meet the aforementioned requirement of neutrality to religion to avoid heightened scrutiny, how is it that a Presidential Proclamation singling out the Muslim religion is neutral enough?

Even more, the Supreme Court has refused to enjoin restrictions on churches in places like California and Nevada, so why are they doing so in New York? We place trust in the Supreme Court, in part, because of its consistency in decision-making, but this strays from that standard and calls into question the legitimacy of the Court as a whole. 

There is also, of course, the fact that there actually is a possibility that this preliminary injunction could have a detrimental effect on public health. The Court notes that New York has not claimed that attendance at various religious services has resulted in the spread of the disease. However, there is no way to ensure that allowing houses of worship to operate at their desired capacity will not lead to an increase in the spread except for granting the injunction and hoping for the best. The majority opinion of the Court even admits that they are not public health experts, and that they should defer to scientists who are more educated on the matter, yet they continue to maintain their decision to allow the injunction to be granted.

The Supreme Court of the United States, on November 25, 2020, granted the preliminary injunction to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York and Agudath Israel of America. By granting these injunctions, the state of New York was prohibited from enforcing the restrictions on the applicants’ religious services that were present in Executive Order 202.68.

It is not clear the public health consequences this decision will bring, nor the costs of the Constitutional injustices brought about by allowing powerhouses in the religious world to pick and choose what laws they want to follow rather than adhering to the secular conventions of the Constitution.