To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
A new book published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State gives educators and families detailed information about the law governing religion and the public schools.
Religion in the Public Schools: A Road Map for Avoiding Lawsuits and Respecting Parents' Legal Rights is a 129-page guide that provides a clear and concise account of court rulings on a variety of religious issues related to the classroom.
"This book will be help educators, parents and students navigate sometimes-tricky issues regarding the role of religion in the classroom," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "Given all the disputes about this topic around the country, it is extraordinarily timely."
Heated controversies over religion and schools have erupted recently in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Iowa and other states.
Topics discussed in the book include school prayer, the teaching of evolution and creationism, student-run religious clubs, religiously based censorship, teaching about religion as an academic subject and students' religious rights.
Court rulings in these areas and others are surveyed, and what the law allows - and what it does not - is explained. Legal cases are fully cited with extensive endnotes.
Lynn said the book makes it clear that religion can be studied as an academic subject and that students have the right to pray on their own voluntarily. But, he added, public schools may not promote worship, advocate a theological viewpoint or pressure students to take part in religious activities.
Religion in the Public Schools was written by Anne Marie Lofaso, an associate professor of law at West Virginia University. A Harvard graduate, Lofaso has law degrees from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the University of Oxford.
Lofaso's book tells what the law says about religion and schools, not what activists on either side of the conflict wish it were.
"All too often, disputes over religion in public schools end up in court," said AU's Lynn. "This book provides a better way. When school officials know what the law says and follow it, everyone benefits."
Lynn said print editions of the book will be distributed to educators, school attorneys and others nationwide. The full text is also available online without cost at: religioninthepublicschools.com/
The book project is supported by a grant from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
"This rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Considering billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's concerns about data privacy, advocates on Tuesday suggested he should welcome the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's newly proposed rule that would stop data brokers from selling people's personal information.
"But they can't do it if you 'delete CFPB,'" grassroots group Demand Progress warned Musk in a post on social media, referring to his remark last week that the bureau is one of the "duplicative regulatory agencies" that he plans to dismantle as the head of a proposed government agency under President-elect Donald Trump.
Demand Progress applauded CFPB Director Rohit Chopra's announcement on Tuesday of a proposed rule that would limit the sale of personal information like Social Security numbers and phone numbers to ensure data brokers don't sell sensitive data to scammers.
Under the rule, the CFPB would clarify that when data brokers sell certain consumer data they are acting as "consumer reporting agencies" as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires them to comply with accuracy requirements and maintain safeguards.
"Until now," said Demand Progress, "data brokers have been able to sell our personal information to the highest bidder—including scammers, blackmailers, and stalkers."
Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director for Demand Progress Education Fund, said the agency "should be applauded for standing up to data brokers and working to rein in the sale of sensitive information about us, which can also end up in the hands of foreign governments."
"This groundbreaking rule offers a needed solution for Americans who are sick and tired of being inundated by scam texts, calls, and emails—often from fraudsters who have been able to buy our data for mere pennies," said Peterson-Cassin. "If finalized, this rule would be a major win for the privacy rights of Americans and is the kind of bipartisan, commonsense action that should be protected and encouraged by politicians in both parties."
Demand Progress was also among the groups that tied the announcement to a recent comment by Musk about a report that data brokers sell data about military personnel to unknown buyers for as little as 12 cents.
Musk called the report "concerning" in a Nov. 17 post on X.
"Good news, Elon!" said the organization, informing him of the proposed rule—before warning that Musk's own plan to gut the CFPB would embolden the very data brokers he expressed concern about.
"Guess which federal agency just proposed a rule cracking down on those data brokers selling the data of U.S. military personnel?" added the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The CFPB said its proposal would also address other "critical threats from current data broker practices," including:
The CFPB introduced the rule after finding that "data brokers routinely sidestep the FCRA by claiming they aren't subject to its requirements."
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who for years has called on the CFPB to address the threats of data brokers, toldThe Washington Post that he has concerns the rule won't go into effect once Trump takes office.
"Unfortunately," said Wyden, "it will be up to Trump's CFPB to finalize this."
Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen, said the proposed protections would protect Americans from the $250 billion-per-year data sales business.
"All of us leave our financial fingerprints everywhere, every day, between credit card swipes, internet communications, and more. Thieves, loan sharks, stalkers, even foreign espionage agents can exploit gaping holes in credit reporting enforcement that the CFPB is rightly proposing to repair," said Naylor.
"A Republican-led congressional committee investigated this last year, a reminder that this isn't a partisan issue," Naylor added. "No one should side with data predators."
"Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything," warned one advocate.
A lengthy series of X posts attacking Social Security as a "nightmare" caught the attention of the platform's mega-billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who could soon take aim at the beloved New Deal program as co-chair of an advisory commission tasked with identifying federal spending to slash.
"Interesting thread," Musk, the world's richest man, wrote late Monday in response to the posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to pull Social Security "up by the roots and get rid of it," along with Medicare and Medicaid.
In his new thread, Lee characterized Social Security—which lifts more Americans above the poverty line than any other federal program—as a "tax plan" insidiously disguised as a retirement plan and condemned the Social Security Act of 1935 as one of many "deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people."
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), replied Tuesday that Lee's posts amount to "a misrepresentation of Social Security's history and how the program works."
"There is nothing deceptive about Social Security. The social insurance program has been working just fine for nearly 90 years and has never missed a payment," said Richtman. "The kind of propaganda Sen. Lee posted undermines public support for Social Security, making it easier to cut or privatize the program. It is perhaps no coincidence that Sen. Lee's second-biggest campaign contributor by industry is the securities and investment sector."
"The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."
Lee also claimed the federal government "routinely raids" the Social Security Trust Fund—a longstanding and misleading right-wing talking point.
Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group, said Tuesday that by amplifying Lee's thread to his hundreds of millions of followers, Musk "just declared war on Social Security."
"For 89 years, through war and peace, boom time and bust, health and pandemics, Social Security has never missed a single payment," said Alex Lawson, SSW's executive director. "Compared to the risky alternatives on Wall Street, Social Security is a rock of retirement security. If billionaires like Elon Musk paid into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, we could expand benefits for everyone and pay them in full forever."
"This is a declaration of war against seniors, people with disabilities, and the American public," Lawson said. "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security, which they call a 'nightmare.' Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything."
"We've seen this play again and again," he added. "When Republicans destroyed defined-benefit pension plans, they claimed that the market would be able to create amazing returns for everybody. Instead, workers got pennies, while Wall Street managers got billions. That is always the plan. We will defeat this Republican effort to steal our earned benefits. The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly denounced Lee's thread and Musk's promotion of it, saying both "should enrage and concern every single American who has contributed to Social Security."
"Sen. Mike Lee has dreamed about 'phasing out Social Security' and the benefits generations of Americans have earned for more than a decade. His bad ideas have been rightfully ignored but last night he got a big assist from Elon Musk, who amplified Lee's wrongheaded views about Social Security on X."
"Social Security is a solemn promise between the American people and the government," Fiesta continued. "We pay for Social Security's guaranteed benefits with every paycheck and expect them to be there when we retire, lose a spouse or parent, or become disabled. No one voted to phase out Social Security or let Wall Street gamble with their earned benefits. Older Americans will rightly punish any politician who tries to cut their benefits or gut the system that has worked for generations."
On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to defend Social Security while simultaneously pushing proposals that would wreck the program's finances.
Many Republican lawmakers, who are soon to be in the majority in both chambers of Congress, have called for raising the Social Security retirement age—a change that would cut benefits across the board. On Tuesday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) toldFox Business Network that "we're going to have to have some hard decisions" on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—a euphemism for benefit cuts.
Richtman of NCPSSM said that the kind of attack advanced by Lee and other Republicans "conflicts with President Trump's promise not to tamper with Americans' earned benefits."
"It signals where Trump's MAGA allies in Congress are heading—toward privatization and benefit cuts, something the majority of Americans across party lines say they do not want," Richtman added.
"The declaration of the martial law is now invalid—the people now can be relieved," said National Assembly Speak Woo Won Shik after the vote.
This is a developing story... Check back for possible updates...
Members of South Korea's parliament voted unanimously and across party lines on Tuesday to rescind a declaration of martial law by President Yoon Suk Yeol just hours earlier.
Following the 190-0 vote, National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik declared that the president's declaration was no longer valid and vowed that the elected representatives of parliament would "protect democracy with the people."
"Through the passage of the motion through the National Assembly, the president must immediately lift the martial law," Woo said in a statement. "The declaration of the martial law is now invalid—the people [of South Korea] now can be relieved."
The effort by Yoon to impose martial law, reportsReuters, "which he cast as aimed at his political foes, was vocally opposed by the speaker of parliament and even the leader of Yoon's own [conservative] party, Han Dong-hoon, who has clashed with the president over his handling of recent scandals."
According to the Associated Press:
Police and military personnel were seen leaving the Assembly's grounds after Woo called for their withdrawal. Lee Jae-myung, leader of the liberal Democratic Party, which holds the majority in the 300-seat parliament, said the party’s lawmakers will remain in the Assembly’s main hall until Yoon formally lifts his order.
"Democratic Party lawmakers, including me and many others, will protect our country's democracy and future and public safety, lives and properties, with our own lives," Lee told reporters.
The AP was providing a live feed from outside parliament in Seoul, where some had gathered to protest the move by Yoon:
The South Korean military reportedly said it would not stand down until Yoon officially lifted the order, as members of the opposition, including Lee and Woo, vowed to remain inside the parliament until such an order was delivered.
According to the Korean Herald: "Under the Constitution, martial law must be lifted when a parliamentary majority demands it." The newspaper reported that martial law troops had dispersed following the request of the Speaker Woo.
The parliamentary motion was passed less than three hours after Yoon first declared martial law.
"I remind [the presidential office] clearly that they must carry out the process of lifting the martial law without delay," said Woo.