Religion Story Archives - West Virginia Public Broadcasting

Private School, Religious Vaccine Exemptions Pass House

The West Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill that would grant youth vaccine exemptions for religious purposes, and give private, parochial and virtual schools priority over student vaccine requirements.

Some West Virginia schools could soon have more leniency over vaccine requirements.

House Bill 5105 would remove vaccine requirements for enrolling in private, parochial or virtual public schools in West Virginia.

It would also allow parents or guardians to exempt their child from vaccination because of their religious beliefs.

The bill narrowly passed the West Virginia House of Delegates on Monday, following a vote of 57 to 41. Two lawmakers did not vote.

The bill’s initial draft only applied to students enrolled in virtual public schools, but was amended to also include students in private or parochial schools earlier this month.

Currently, students must receive vaccines for several infectious diseases — like polio, measles and hepatitis B — regardless of the type of school they attend, unless they are homeschooled or medically exempt.

Under the bill, private, parochial and virtual schools would still have the authority to impose their own vaccine requirements. But these schools would have discretion over what vaccine requirements they have in place.

Proponents of the bill described it as a matter of personal choice and religious freedom.

Del. Laura Kimble, R-Harrison, serves as lead sponsor on the bill. Kimble said she drafted the bill after learning that students must be vaccinated to enroll in virtual public school programs, which she called “absurd.”

“We live in West Virginia. We live in the United States of America. We have rights. We have the constitution,” she said. “We acknowledge that we’re guaranteed the right to religious liberty, yet our West Virginia government has attempted to infringe on this right.”

Del. Larry Kump, R-Berkeley, said he does not consider himself anti-vaccine, but that he supports the bill as a matter of personal choice.

“Why should government mandates do this?” he asked fellow lawmakers on the House floor. “This is a personal property or personal liberty and accountability bill.”

But opponents on both sides of the aisle expressed concerns that increasing leniency over vaccines would hurt public health.

Some lawmakers said the success of decades-long vaccine campaigns has removed a sense of urgency in present-day thinking around public health.

“Vaccines have erased these diseases from our memory,” said Del. Ric Griffith, D-Wayne. “We don’t see them, so they don’t happen.”

Del. Anitra Hamilton, D-Monongalia, said vaccines are an important way to curb public health emergencies.

“At the end of the day, this is about protecting not only our children, because if your children catch something, they’re going to take it home to the family,” she said. “This will allow the vaccine to spread to local communities and businesses, and we don’t have enough childcare to support the illnesses that will come,” Hamilton said.

Del. James Akers, R-Kanawha, said he saw value in the state’s current vaccine mandate, and that the bill might also be unfair to families that cannot afford public education.

“I think that we are potentially creating an equal protection problem among schools, because we’ll have a situation where if a parent can afford to send their child to a private or parochial school, then they will not have to be immunized,” he said.

Akers also said he found the bill to be too far-reaching.

“I wish this bill was just about religious exemptions. I would press green every day,” Akers said. “But this bill goes beyond that, and I believe it does pose a risk to public health I simply can’t support.”

After more than two hours of intense debate, lawmakers narrowly approved the bill just days before the deadline for a bill to pass its initial chamber. The bill will now undergo further deliberation in the West Virginia Senate.

Judge: W.Va. Can’t Require Incarcerated Atheist To Participate In Religious Programming

A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that the state corrections agency can’t force an incarcerated atheist and secular humanist to participate in religiously-affiliated programming to be eligible for parole.

In a sweeping 60-page decision issued Tuesday, Charleston-based U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Goodwin said Saint Marys Correctional Center inmate Andrew Miller “easily meets his threshold burden of showing an impingement on his rights.”

The state’s “unmitigated actions force Mr. Miller to choose between two distinct but equally irreparable injuries,” the judge wrote. He can either “submit to government coercion and engage in religious exercise at odds with his own beliefs,” or “remain incarcerated until at least April 2025.”

Goodwin issued a preliminary injunction requiring West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials to remove completion of a state-run and federally-funded residential substance abuse program from Miller’s parole eligibility requirements. The agency did not return a request for comment Thursday.

Miller filed suit in a federal district court in April alleging the state is forcing Christianity on incarcerated people and has failed to accommodate repeated requests to honor his lack of belief in God.

The suit claimed Miller encountered “religious coercion” in June 2021 when he entered the Pleasants County correctional facility. Miller is serving a one- to 10-year, nondeterminative sentence for breaking and entering.

Substance use was not a factor in his offense, but Miller was enrolled in the program because he is in recovery from addiction.

He alleged the federally-funded substance abuse treatment program — which is a requirement for his parole consideration — is “infused with Christian practices,” including Christian reading materials and mandated Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings, where the Serenity and Lord’s Prayer are recited.

Due to the religious elements of the program, Miller withdrew from it after five days at Saint Marys. Prior to incarceration, he received secular treatment and maintained his sobriety for four years, according to his suit.

Multiple courts have determined that step-based programs like Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous are religious-based programs because they are predicated on the existence of a higher power or a God. Steps ask participants to turn their “lives over to the care of God” and encourage prayer to improve “conscious contact with God.”

In the “Big Book,” the foundational document of these programs, “Chapter 4: We Agnostics” tells atheists and agnostics that they are “doomed to alcoholic death” unless they “seek Him.” The chapter characterizes non-believers as “handicapped by obstinacy, sensitiveness, and unreasoning prejudice.”

In his decision, Goodwin said although West Virginia’s “longstanding” program has never faced judicial scrutiny, other courts have found them to contain “such substantial religious components that governmentally compelled participation” violates the First Amendment.

“I have been provided with no evidence that West Virginia’s program is any less religious or less coercive than the programs invalidated in other jurisdictions,” Goodwin said.

The Parole Board Panel interviewed Miller three times and declined to grant him parole. Miller alleged that his failure to complete the program contributed significantly to the Board’s decision to deny him parole, something the state did not dispute.

“Although Mr. Miller has no entitlement to parole, the record strongly suggests that he would already have been released, but for maintaining his objections to an unconstitutional policy,” Goodwin said.

Geoffrey T. Blackwell, Litigation Counsel for American Atheists who represented Miller along with nonprofit legal services organization Mountain State Justice, on Wednesday called the ruling “a complete vindication of Andrew’s rights under the law.”

“Without Andrew’s willingness to take on this fight, West Virginia would continue to unconstitutionally impose religion on people in its corrections system,” he said. American Atheists is an organization that fights for atheists’ civil liberties and advocates the separation of church and state in the U.S.

Lesley Nash, an attorney with Mountain State Justice, said the organization is pleased the court protected Miller’s rights when the state did not.

“No one should be forced to set aside their moral or religious creed as a precondition of their parole,” Nash said.

WVU Researchers Find Burnout Among Faith Leaders

In a recent study, WVU researchers looked at burnout among community faith leaders. Appalachia Health News Reporter, Emily Rice, sat down with Angel Smothers, associate dean for community engagement, and clinical associate professor at the WVU School of Nursing, to discuss the study’s findings.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Rice: Is this research based on a pandemic era study or something more recent?

Smothers: During the stay-at-home order of 2020, we wanted to really take the opportunity to look at how faith leaders were approaching working with their congregants and the people within their faith communities. And so we completed this study, knowing that this was the only time we’ll ever be able to do a study like this.

Rice: Have conditions improved or declined since then?

Smothers: So, you know, we recognize from the study that we need further research to look at now that things have settled down, where are we?

Rice: I was wondering how the study got started?

Smothers: We really were seeking to find out what were faith leaders, what techniques were they using to still engage with their community members? Because there were pastors here in West Virginia, we’re the third most rural state in the nation. And you know, we have a lot of very rural areas where there’s limited internet. And so, we wanted to find out what were some differences between pastors, let’s say in the southern coal fields of West Virginia, where there’s limited internet versus the more urban settings such as in Mon County, Morgantown area.

Rice: Why is this study important to you? Why is it important to pay attention to people experiencing burnout?

Smothers: What we wanted to look at was those faith community nurses, and you know, pastoral leadership, whether it’s pastors or priests or clergy in faith communities, what they were doing to continue to engage with the communities that they serve. The burnout piece of that is, especially during a crisis moment, we wanted to see, how did they overcome those barriers in accessing and supporting their community members?

Rice: What is compassion fatigue, in your own words?

Smothers: Compassion fatigue is when someone is in the role of caregiver. And whether that be a pastor, a nurse, someone, a lay person, that is just a supportive person for someone else. When you’re in the caregiver role. It’s… it’s really easy to get burned out. And so caregiver compassion or compassion fatigue, really relates to someone having burnout who is in a caregiver role.

Rice: And why is it important for people in that caregiver role to feel compassion satisfaction? And what does compassion satisfaction mean to you?

Smothers: Compassion satisfaction really is for someone who is in that caregiver role to feel that the work and the sacrifices that they’re making to provide care are meaningful.

Emily Rice: What are some of the self-care strategies you recommend for those experiencing burnouts?

Smothers: We recommend that people self-examine their own limitations, and don’t exceed those and remember their own spiritual, physical, mental and emotional needs and seek out ways to address those within themselves even while still acting as a caregiver.

Appalachia Health News is a project of West Virginia Public Broadcasting with support from Charleston Area Medical Center and Marshall Health.

Lawmakers Talk Latest Action As Crossover Day Comes To A Close

On this episode of The Legislature Today, it was Crossover Day at the West Virginia Legislature, meaning it was the last day for a bill to be read a third time in its chamber of origin. Chris Schulz talks with Dels. Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, and Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, about the day’s action.

On this episode of The Legislature Today, it was Crossover Day at the West Virginia Legislature, meaning it was the last day for a bill to be read a third time in its chamber of origin. Chris Schulz talks with Dels. Kayla Young, D-Kanawha, and Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia, about the day’s action.

Also, Gov. Jim Justice signed Senate Bill 10 – the Campus Self-Defense Act – into law. The new law authorizes the carrying of concealed pistols or revolvers under certain circumstances and in certain areas on the grounds of an institution of higher education.

A bill purporting to forbid “government limitations on the exercise of religion” now only needs the governor’s signature to become law following Senate action late Tuesday.

And a bill that lawmakers are calling the Women’s Right to Know Act passed the Senate. Emily Rice has this story.

Finally, in the House, delegates considered a flurry of bills, including one that would essentially block the state board of investments from investing in companies that refuse to support fossil fuels. Another approved bill would establish stricter statewide marriage consent laws.

Having trouble viewing the video below? Click here to watch it on YouTube.

The Legislature Today is West Virginia’s only television/radio simulcast devoted to covering the state’s 60-day regular legislative session.

Watch or listen to new episodes Monday through Friday at 6 p.m. on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

Senate Sends Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Governor’s Desk

A bill purporting to forbid “government limitations on the exercise of religion” now only needs Gov. Jim Justice’s signature to become law after Senate action late Tuesday.

House Bill 3042, also known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed the Senate on party lines after the chamber suspended constitutional rules to advance the bill.

The bill, which drew fierce opposition during a public hearing last week, was only passed by the House of Delegates Monday morning.

Sen. Amy Grady, R-Mason, presented the bill on the Senate floor. She said the bill would prohibit the government from treating religious persons or institutions more restrictively than comparable secular institutions or persons and create a legal standard.

“The bill also establishes a standard called the compelling state interest test for courts to use when evaluating whether the government has infringed on the freedom of religion,” Grady said. “This judicial standard already applies to all federal laws and is in place in most states.”

Grady went on to highlight a clause that clarifies, “nothing in the new section may be construed to create a defense to protect actions to end the life of an born or unborn person.” She finished by stating that the bill is functionally identical to a 2021 law passed in South Dakota that has not been challenged successfully.

Sen. Mike Woelfel, D-Cabell, asked for clarification on the bill’s purpose, using the closure of churches during the COVID-19 lockdowns as an example.

“As I understand the bill, one of the things that it would do, if I’m correct, would be if there was another COVID outbreak, prevent the state from closing my church and preventing me from exercising my freedom of religion, or as the bill puts it, the exercise of my freedom of religion, is that correct?” Woelfel asked.

“Yes. If other secular institutions are left open, such as movie theaters, shopping malls, casinos then churches cannot be closed,” Grady replied.

Woelfel went on to voice his opposition to the bill, and raised a concern that the clause relating to ending the life of an unborn or born person was designed to discriminate against the Jewish faith. The Torah holds that life begins at the first breath, and Jewish sources explicitly state that abortion is not only permitted but is required should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual.

“I submit to you the reason that’s in this bill is to discriminate against one group of people. They have the same right to exercise their freedom of religion,” Woelfel said. “Page one we protect the people that see the world the way we do, if we’re Christians, and then page two we deny that same freedom to the Jewish faith. I’ll tell you right now, that’s not going to stay under strict scrutiny. That is not gonna hold up, that will declare this bill unconstitutional. A magistrate court will figure that one out. So that’s what happens when we get in a hurry, respectfully.”

Grady argued that the bill is not for attacking, but rather “a shield” to protect more people in West Virginia. She pointed to similar laws in states across the country that have been in place for more than thirty years without issue.

“This is not a tool to use for discrimination,” Grady said.

Woelfel also raised concerns that the bill would allow challenges to vaccine requirements, as well as existing nondiscrimination ordinances in several cities across the state.

Also known as fairness laws, the ordinances passed by individual municipalities protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations.

West Virginia has no statewide anti-discrimination law for its LGBTQ residents.

Sen. Mike Caputo, D-Marion, echoed Woelfel’s concerns.

“There’s 17 cities at least that have adopted fairness ordinances that I believe are in true jeopardy if they are challenged, if this bill passes,” Caputo said. “They’re little rural areas like Sutton, all the way to our biggest cities like Charleston and Huntington and everything in between. We talk about how we want local government to have local control and make local decisions, until it’s something that we don’t like.”

Sen. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, argued that the legal test the bill establishes would work to protect existing nondiscrimination ordinances passed by cities and towns. He pointed to cities with similar ordinances in Texas, Florida and South Dakota – all of which have passed similar “religious freedom” bills – and argued that by passing such ordinances, those cities have made such protections a compelling governmental interest.

“If someone were to have a case against a city that had a nondiscrimination ordinance that included that as protected class, the compelling governmental interest would have been to include that protected class,” Weld said. “So because that exists, this piece of legislation cannot be used to, in my opinion, overturn a city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.”

Caputo also expressed frustration that laws like House Bill 3042 go against the purported interest of attracting people to move to the state in the interest of economic development. He said the young people he spoke with were dismayed by this type of legislation.

“They can’t believe we’re even talking about stuff like this. They want a more inclusive West Virginia. They don’t want to be having these kinds of discussions. They just want things to be normal for everybody, regardless of how they feel about certain issues and how they love maybe a little differently than most of us in this room,” Caputo said.

“I’m gonna have to go home and hear about this, of how silly a bunch of old people are talking about the future West Virginia, and how we think it should look,” he continued. “Not how it is, not how the future wants it to be, but how we think it should look and we should make that perfect little picture and go home to our perfect world and I’d like none of this exists.”

Grady argued that such laws in other states have not impeded economic development.

“As a matter of fact, a few, most of the places still show growth,” she said. “Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Illinois, North Dakota. They’ve all shown tremendous growth when it comes to economic development and nothing has impeded that growth based on this law.”

The bill passed 30 to 3 along party lines, with one senator absent.

House Approves Religious Freedom Restoration Act

A bill that looks at religious freedom was up for a final vote in the West Virginia House of Delegates Monday. House Bill 3042 is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and is similar to a bill that failed in the West Virginia Legislature in 2016.

A bill that looks at religious freedom was up for a final vote in the West Virginia House of Delegates Monday.

House Bill 3042 is called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and is similar to a bill that failed in the West Virginia Legislature in 2016.

Supporters argue the state needs the law so residents can challenge government regulations that interfere with their religious beliefs.

Those in opposition say the proposal will be used to discriminate against LGBTQ people and other marginalized groups.

Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, attempted to amend the bill twice. One proposal would have required businesses to post signage in their windows saying what kind of people they would not serve. Pushkin’s amendments ultimately failed.

During full debate of the bill, Pushkin argued what he felt were the true intentions of the legislation.

“This is about whether or not somebody should be able to be kicked out of their apartment because they’re gay, somebody should be fired from their job because they’re gay, somebody’s refused service in somebody’s store simply because they’re gay,” Pushkin said. “If you believe that, go ahead and vote for it. I think you’re better than that. Vote against this garbage.”

Some delegates, such as Del. Todd Kirby, R-Raleigh, argued the intent of the bill is to protect individuals, such as school teachers, from having to speak in support of lifestyles they don’t agree with.

“Such things as promoting transgenderism, homosexuality, in our classrooms, in our grade school classrooms,” Kirby said. “And these policies are sold to the American public and to the labor unions, the teachers unions, as being open, which that may be the intention. But what is happening is these teachers and administrators rights are being violated. Their religious beliefs are being infringed upon, because they’re being forced and compelled to speak in a way that violates their religious beliefs.”

Other delegates in opposition argued the bill could cause medical discrimination if a doctor or pharmacist doesn’t agree with a patient’s lifestyle.

“Let’s say somebody, an unmarried woman, comes in for birth control. Can a pharmacist refuse to fulfill that prescription?” asked Del. Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia. “What if a gay man comes in for an HIV pill? Can they refuse to fulfill that prescription? I think that’s what this is about. It’s about whether a doctor can refuse medical care.”

The bill’s lead sponsor, Del. Jonathan Pinson, R-Mason, told the body the law would not determine what is right and wrong but rather create a judicial process in state code for situations where religious freedom comes into question.

“We’re not determining something to be illegal,” Pinson said. “Rather, we’re creating a judicial test. We’re giving statutory instructions to the judiciary, that when a RFRA case where someone would allege that a law that we pass in this body or a local municipal ordinance or county ordinance is in violation of their religious conviction, that the judiciary is to use this to point us to a two question test: number one, is their compelling state interest? And number two, is the state acting in the least restrictive means possible?”

The House debated House Bill 3042 for more than an hour, and it passed 86 to 12.

It now goes to the Senate for consideration.