Newsletters

---

Public schools and private faith 

Bu Rev Anthony Suarez ESQ.

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) recently decided a case base on actions by a Maryland State board of education to mandate that all school students must be taught lessons on the LGBTQ community lifestyle and values. The School board decided that all students must be taught that the lifestyle and values of the LGBTQ community must be tolerated, and be respected. The Supreme Court decided that the mandated lessons were a violation of the first amendment rights of parents who are religious and did not wish their children to learn such lessons from teachers. (see Mahmoud vs Taylor (June 2025)

The court determined that anti LGBTQ principles were protected by the first amendment as they infringed upon parents religious views.

I though this decision covered interesting legal ground and as a law professor, minister and former legislator I could shed some light to people of faith as to what the decision means to our society. 

Let me set the facts so that we can then analyze if the court was both legally, morally or ecclesiastically on solid ground. 

Let us first examine what the first amendment of the United States Constitution actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” 

The Maryland law in question, was a mandated curriculum that children ages were required to attend lessons that had illustrated picture books of various life situations of gay men being married, transgender children expression their gender preference and the reaction of the community to the gay marriage, gender preference declaration and adoption situation of gay couples.

The school board had original y allowed parents to opt-out of this type of instruction. However the school board eventually changed its policy and the opt out feature was eliminated, making attendance mandatory.

The story books taught tolerance and acceptance of the L GBTQ community values relating to the recognition of the life style selected.

Member of various religious viewpoints objected to this curriculum and sought to enjoin the state from making tis instruction mandatory on the grounds that this violated their rights to be able to practice their religion, as if infringed on their right to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

This is a classic confrontation of competing viewpoints which the courts are mandated to protect without preference for one or prejudice toward the other.

Lets examine the competing views 

What is the role of Public Education?

This topic can be controversial as different communities have widely different views and goals for public education. The federal government of Department of Education has a minimal goal to public education.

“Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the United States. It is states and communities, as well public and private organizations of all kinds that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation’

The declare their mission as “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access” 

We can note, that nothing in this statement speaks to teaching, moral values, societal norms or character development. What is clear is that the Federal government perceives education as merely “fostering” academic excellence for global competitiveness. It will be left to the states to expand beyond this base level.

Some educators believe that public education should have additional purposes, David Laberee in his article (1997) argues that there are three overarching goals for public education in the united states.

A. demographic equality,

b. social efficiency 

c. and social mobility.

Other scholars argue that public education should “create informed citizens, personal development, economic mobility and character building by way of civic training and social cohesion.

These requirements are much broader than the bare bones purpose stated in the Federal mission statement from above.

However while public education perspective is left to the individual states, whatever curricular they do establish still must confirm to the Federal constitutional standard of the first amendment. 

That means that the states may not use its power to either establish a religion nor prohibit the free exercise of religious belief of its citizens.  

In order to analyze if the SCOTUS decided correctly from a legal precedence point of view a complex set of rules must be undertaken to follow the logic of the majority of the judges.  There was a strong dissent among 3 justices who saw the case differently than the majority. That analysis is beyond the scope of this paper but more appropriate for on of my law school classes.

What we can say is that t the decision of the majority depended largely on what are “values, morals and ethics” of the religious beliefs. The question being dealt with centered on whether the curricula, and the books used, were a “prohibition on the free exercise of religion?

Maryland case facts 

In the Maryland case the school board made the classes mandatory for all students .the parents could not opt-out for their children an avoiding learning or hearing about the lessons on the LGTBQ lifestyle. The books portrayed two men getting married and the ultimate conclusion that the “community was happy” as was the biological children of one of the men.

A second book portrayed the situation of a child who believed that, while born a female, felt like she was boy inside. This declaration caused confusion with the other sibling who told his sister she cannot be a boy, as you must be born that way. The mother told her son that is not above sex but love. The mother declared that we must love her child and accept the decision of the child. Ultimately the family was reconciled and accepted the decision of the child;

These lesson were designed to show tolerance of a different kind of lifestyle and create an atmosphere of acceptance among all students attending the class for a lifestyle that these students may have been taught other wise

Teaches were given instruction on how to teach the subject matter, did not encourage the lifestyle but did encourage understanding, tolerance and acceptance of the individual decisions..

When is exposure to facts an Infringement of another’s rights? 

Let us examine the fine distinction that the court had to make in order to determine if the Maryland law was a “prohibition of religious freedom of the parents not wishing to have their children listen or learn of these messages.

There are over 4 thousand religions on this planet and thousands of versions of Christianity. If public schools are tasked with beyond teaching math and economic competitiveness but expected to promote demographic equality, social efficiency, social mobility, personal development, economic mobility and character building by way of civic training and promote social cohesion, then we must reach another conclusion.

If you agree that public schools, have no right in promoting one religion or one version of Christianity over another , however do have the obligation to promote social cohesion and build character, then some basic standard must be established. 

It would seem that exposure to various cultures, and religions to develop mutual respect is an urgent governmental function.

Certainly everyone has the right to their religious beliefs .it does not appear that the Maryland law forbade anyone from believing what they want to believe only to respect and accept the choice of another. Some religious groups conduct animal sacrifices and show their children this custom others may believe in Eugenics as many Americans and Nazis did during the early 20th century and taught their children these values at home. The question that we as a society must decide is if in our public schools, in this environment, these private practices should be given equal footing.

Is it possible to teach character and social cohesion without teaching about some core values?

Is not tolerance and respect for others opinions which are not forced on anyone a core value? Which religious freedoms and be limited by the governments legitimate concern or social cohesion and demographic equality.. Is there a difference between values and morals? Is not religious beliefs a moral standard not a mere value?

What are values or morals?

Dr Brindusa Vantu, in her article, values and moral clarification May 2024 Mentalhealth.com describes morals to mean “societal norms that dictate what is considered right and wrong within a community. Norms guide behavior and help maintain social order reflection the collective those of a society. Morals are not static, they evolve with society and vary across Different cultures and communities. However certain fundamental behaviors , such as honesty, and respect are widely upheld.”

She further describes values as “individual belief and the principles that drive thir behavior. The yare the foundation upon which people build their identities and motivate themselves toward personal growth. 

If public schools are to teach social cohesion there will need to tach some basic fundamental values of respect for others.

The court was very concerned wit the potential of coercive or subtle requirement of “abandonment of a religious value, with the school board mandate. The court also determined that th school board mandate  would cause students to “act affirmatively contra to their family held religious beliefs” this would occur by the student accepting as normal and/or acceptable the conduct that their family religious beliefs seems unacceptable.

If Maryland curriculum was coercive in its attempt to teach tolerance this would be a legitimate claim of religious discrimination

The question then raised is, when does tolerance and exposure to other beliefs conflict with a person’s first amendment right to hold onto a religious belief. 

There is a recognized governmental right when their interest are a compelling state interest in a area, to legislate even if it infringes on a core religious belief. If the governmental interest is compelling and the law is sufficiently narrowly drawn then the state may restrict individual rights.

The AAUW, a religious think tank out of Washington D.C. writes in their r web site 

“many religions  tend to have denominations…. Each with their distinctive set of beliefs. Radical religious sects have been credited with running various violent and deadly terrorist organizations. While we can identify extremist religious groups overseas , such as Hezbollah, ISIS/ISIC and Al Quada there are numerous extremist sects throughout  the United States. Some of these are founded of Christian identity or extreme Catholicism. Some sects use religious teaching as the foundation for a platform of hate. Examples of this include some anti LGVBTQ , anti-abortion and anit Muslim groups. Treating other differently because of their chosen religion is a form of religious discrimination. We should work to become more include concerning religious practice that are different from our own.

It is clear to me that each of us have the divine right to express the existence of the divine , no matter how you define it.

But to avoid eternal conflict that humanity has suffered over the milleium over who has the correct religious practice, that at least In the public forum, respect and tolerance even if not accepted,  as one’s own,  is a core fundamental responsibility of government. Government has a compelling and vital state interest in the area of social cohesion in without coercion, without endorsement or or against any faith tradition.

Conclusion 

Thus I conclude that 

a. schools are run and funded by the general public good

b. . B. that the government may not endorse one religious view over another 

c.  c. that exposure to and acceptance of another view point, within their community , with is not violent nor coercive is a fundamental core interest of the government 

d. d. this interest is compelling  

e. the religious freedom of the complaining  party is not coerced nor requires the abandonment of core beliefs

State Sponsored Charter Schools and Religious freedom 

What does public funding of Religious schools mean for the faith Community? 

By Rev. Anthony Suarez Esq. 

The American experiment in democracy remains a work in progress. When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they were deeply aware that religious conflict had caused extraordinary violence throughout human history—often exceeding even the devastation wrought by kings and empires. Across Europe and beyond, wars were fought because one religious group sought to impose its understanding of God upon another, each convinced of its exclusive righteousness.

Religious leaders, acting in good faith, often felt compelled to enforce doctrine, discipline, and conformity within their communities. History reminds us—sometimes painfully—that clashes of faith have divided families, fueled persecution, and justified wars in the name of a righteous God.

Over time, the Supreme Court has wrestled with the tension between two distinct constitutional principles: the prohibition against establishing religion and the protection of free religious exercise. These are often misunderstood as identical, but they address different concerns.

Courts use various legal “tests” to determine whether a law violates religious freedom. The most well-known of these, often applied in religious cases, is the Lemon Test, which asks three basic questions:

1. Does the law have a secular (non-religious) purpose?

2. Does its primary effect neither advance nor inhibit religion?

1. Does it avoid excessive entanglement between      government and religion?

If a law fails any one of these questions, it risks violating the First Amendment.

Most recently the court in cases of Mahmoud vs Taylor (2025) the court instructs us to determine if the government regulation or law “significantly interferes” on the ability of parents to instruct their children on their faith tradition and values. Thus, in this case, which dealt with lessons on Homosexuality, transgender and same sex marriages, lessons mandated by the Maryland school board, without the ability of parents being able to opt out of such instruction. The court determined that the state had gone too far and had substantially interfered with the right to freely excise their religious beliefs 

The lesson to be taken from the series of cases, is that when teaching a mixed audience of religious beliefs the government must not limit or impose one view over another. 

The purpose of this reflection is not to teach constitutional law. Rather, it is to ask a deeper spiritual and ecclesiastical question: What happens to religious independence, doctrine, and moral authority when religious schools rely on public funding?

What does it mean for a nation committed to religious diversity if government, even indirectly, begins financing religious separation according to faith preference?

There is extensive scholarship on what might be called spiritual isolation—the practice of treating a particular theology, ritual, or worldview as sacred and exclusive within a group. Human history reflects thousands of religious traditions, each offering a path to meaning, forgiveness, and transcendence.

Even within shared faiths, diversity abounds: Catholic and Orthodox Christianity; tens of thousands of Protestant denominations; Sunni and Shi’a Islam; Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.

Religious schools exist to transmit particular doctrines. But when such schools receive public funding, difficult questions arise: If the school accepts students from different religious traditions, how does it avoid the trap of dilution of its religious message or in the alternative protect non-believers from being indoctrinated and thus violating their rights to religious beliefs? 

Public funding inevitably carries public accountability. History teaches us that religious institutions, like political parties, are not immune to the corrupting pull of power and competition.

When religious organizations compete for government funding, difficult temptations arise:

• Will doctrine be softened to attract more students?
• Or hardened to preserve identity at the cost of      isolation?

We have seen this tension in the rise of “mega-churches,” where growth and popularity sometimes eclipse theological depth. As Pastor Rick Warren has warned, expansion can come at the cost of spiritual substance.

Before World War II, America maintained racially segregated military units based on widely held but false assumptions. Only integration dispelled those myths.

We must ask whether publicly funded religious schools risk reinforcing similar forms of isolation—this time along religious lines. While separation may be a legal right, should it be publicly financed? And does public funding not signal public endorsement?

Religions arose to help ordinary people grapple with life’s deepest questions—questions of purpose, suffering, and transcendence. Across history, leaders, institutions, and sacred spaces emerged to guide that search.

Yet history also warns us of a recurring pattern—the cycle of religious movements:

1. The Man     — the visionary
2. The Movement     — the followers
3. The Machine     — institutional power
4. The Monument     — rigid preservation
5. The Muzzle     — silencing competing voices

When religion becomes entangled with state power, the risk of the fifth stage increases. The Constitution was designed precisely to prevent this outcome.

Government-funded religious schools risk crossing the line into excessive entanglement between church and state. In doing so, they may undermine not only constitutional principles but also the spiritual independence and moral credibility of faith communities themselves.

Religious freedom flourishes best when belief is chosen, not subsidized; when faith persuades by witness, not advantage. The slippery slope begins when public funds are used to advance private theology.

Faith does not need government endorsement to thrive—and history suggests it is strongest when it resists it. 

   Good Afternoon everyone,I wish to welcome all of you of like spirit who wish to participate in prayer and protest in a great American tradition and in the way of people of Faith to demonstate both our citizenship and our faith in God and in humanity. 

I am Rev Tony Suarez, staff minister at Greater Orlando Center for spiritual living in Orlando, just minutes from this location at city hall.

To start off with I would like all of us to pledge to a commitment of non violence 

Please repeat after me.

We gather today in the spirit of peace.

We gather in the way of nonviolence taught by our faiths, our ancestors, and our

shared humanity.

Invocation: 

We gather here today knowing that there is one creator, one unmoved mover , the alfa and the omega, the universal mind, that thing That I call God.

We call upon the Spirit who animates our lives with Love and Compassion. Faith traditions and cultures connect Spirit with Breath and Wind. They are divine presence, life force, guidance, and spiritual renewal.

Judaism speaks of Ruach in Genesis when the wind of God swept over the waters at Creation and breathed life into Adam and Eve.

Christianity speaks of Pneuma at Pentecost when a mighty rushing wind spoke to foreigners and all heard in their own language the Spirit speaking to them of renewal and spiritual empowerment.

Islam speaks of Ruh (ROOH) when Allah breathed His Spirit into Adam, giving him life.

Hinduism speaks of Prana, the Breath of Wind, the life that is the essence of the soul, symbol of purity and spiritual cleansing.

Native American tribes speak of the wind as a spiritual force, representing the breath of life that connects all living things.

Whatever your faith tradition is, we know that love and peace is greater than hate and division

You don’t have to be as famous and rich as Bad Bunny to follow what he told us at the Super Bowl

That love is stronger than hate.

We are here because we know that when we gather together in that sentiment of love the Universe which we call God, is listening and we are in communication with the one, the I am.

We are here because silence protects injustice.

We are here because faith demands more. We

Today, we call for

Justice!

We gather not for show, not for ourselves.

We gather because we will not be complicit.

We gather to stand where our faith demands we stand:

with the poor, the stranger, the imprisoned.

Lets listen to a song by casting crowns

We were meant to be courageous 

Lecture:

Injustice, I have spent the last 50 years of my life fighting for justice because 

I was born in the south Bronx, where everyone in my neighborhood was poor 

and we saw the police and authority NOT as friend but as the enemy.

I went to law school and began to work at the District attorney’s office seeking 

to be the hand that dispensed justice in an unjust world.

I soon found out that office policies and not my idea of justice controlled what I 

had to do on that job.

I became a defense attorney a constitutional attorney where I felt that I could

uphold the high ideals of our founders and all that had been taught to me in 

school. That too turned into a struggle each and every day for thousands of

individuals I represented over the years . I fought for causes, individuals, 

political parties and even served a couple of years as a legislator in Tallahassee. 

You know what, Injustice still continues and seems to be rising all over the 

world. 

I wanted to see justice, fairness for all people and like the Paul McCartney song, 

Imagine, I sought solutions in all spaces.

I visited Dr Martin Luther King, grave site, his museum and Washington 

memorial seeking what I could do to fulfill his dream, that INJUSTICE FOR ONE 

IS INJUSTICE FOR Everyone.

I understood that nonviolence is a lot tougher than I thought. Jesus told us to 

turn the other cheek, that he does lives by the sword will die by the sword

.

Gandhi taught us that civil disobedience must never be non violet in order to

display directly to the oppressor who is using violence.

In this week we have seen violence used against nonviolent protesters and 

violence upon nonviolent individuals who are alleged to be undocumented in our 

nation. 

These protesters are showing what we must do to stop injustice, but it is a lot 

easier said than done. Just showing up today must cause all of us to think if

we are tomorrow headline, May I end up in Custody, jail or Dead?

It is not easy to stay and take the blows 

My Bronx instinct is to kick your rear end. My military training taught me to 

look for your weakness and then attack.

It takes much more courage to resist by knowing you will not fight back.

Today our once proud, leader of the free world, is acting much more like Caesar 

than Jesus

. 

We people of faith in both in the Divine and in our nation as a beacon of hope 

and fairness, cannot simply sit back or stand back and watch injustice being 

dispensed with much callousness.

We must act, and by being here we are doing just that.

Some friends have brought with them symbolic butterflies. A butterfly is a 

perfect metaphor for what we must be like.

A butterfly starts off as a worm, crawling and monochrome in color. After its 

metamorphosis it becomes a beautiful, delicate and colorful creature that flys 

above all other land creatures. A Democracy, such as ours, was born of war,

death and untold suffering. After WW II it seemed to morph into the a butterfly 

for the world to see and emulate. We saved western and eventually eastern

Europe and the Far East from their own self destruction. However like a 

butterfly, democracy is a delicate creature. 

If we press to hard it will crush its wings and death will surely come.

Democracy can only flourish in open, full and peaceful dialogue.

We in the faith community must lead in this struggle but never countering 

violence when faced with violence. 

Being Puerto Rican I was so proud to see Bad Bunny proclaim to the 120 million

people around the world that Love is stronger than hate. It was Jesus own

words that the greatest commandment was to love our neighbors as we are to 

love ourselves. Ernest Holms, founder of the Science of mInd of the Centers for

Spiritual living stated “the circle of love is complete. It comprehends all, 

includes all and binds all…. I cannot depart from its presence nor wander from 

its care. My love is complete within me. The love of god binds me to itself

and will not let me go. I shall sit in our presence and learn the wondrous things 

you tell me for you are God”

So today commit to nonviolent resistance and to love for all our neighbor who

are suffering.

I would like to invite those who would like to speak and share a story with us to 

approach and tell their story.

Invitation for testimonials of those in attendance.

Thank you all for sharing your time and your commitment. When we think we 

cannot challenge that we cannot do something. Please take the words of this

next song to heart.