July 2021

At the top of the new religious school building of the Temple Israel Ner Tamid is the founding text of the school: “Thou shalt diligently teach them to your children,” from Deuteronomy 6: 7.

The verse means more to TINT than an old collection of words – it symbolizes the temple’s deep and long-standing dedication to education.

Now anchored in the walls and floors of its new 6,130 square foot religious school extension and refurbished sanctuary, TINT’s membership in education can be seen by anyone entering its building at 1732 Lander Road in Mayfield Heights. New construction and renovations were completed earlier this month in July after starting in late November. And now the community can see the results of this work when TINT holds its open house and dedication from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. on August 22.

“There aren’t many congregations that are building religious schools,” Rabbi TINT Matthew Eisenberg told the Cleveland Jewish News on July 19. “But for us, it shows real faith in our future and that we are building for it. … We are building schools to teach the commandments, the teachings of God, to your children.

The idea for the temple’s religious school expansion had been swirling for years, but its pressing need emerged about six years ago, TINT president Richard Freedman told CJN on July 19.

The one-classroom school-like configuration of the religious school where students of all ages learned together in the main hall quickly exceeded its space. TINT has set up classrooms delimited by partitions in the social hall, while other classrooms have been set up in the basement and in the laundry room. The size of students attending religious school has increased to 35.

In 2014, the Mayfield Heights Fire Department said TINT could no longer run classes there.

“At this point, we knew we had to do something,” Freedman said.

The TINT leadership team immediately set out to plan and fundraise for a brand new religious school, as well as renovations and technology updates to its shrine. The temple bought and bulldozed two neighboring houses, giving TINT an extended building and green space.

The completed additions created a new religious school with four separate classrooms for grade levels, offices for 10-11 educators, and a library; an open atrium for onegs and musical performances on its newly acquired grand piano; bathrooms and terrace.

The updated sanctuary has been refurbished into a completely remodeled space with all new finishes. In total, the new religious school building and renovated shrine cost $ 1.2 million, Freedman said.

At the forefront of construction, the temple had to be given a technological makeover to better educate its students, said Edna Akrish, director of education at TINT. TINT’s religious education program is offered to 3-year-olds at senior high school levels.

“Our greatest asset is our children… and they learn differently than before, even five or ten years ago,” Akrish told CJN. “The idea that the technology must be as important or even more important than the structure itself has been a common thread from the beginning of this project.

Religious school classrooms and library feature large-screen virtual whiteboards with zoom capability, touchscreen interactions, and Microsoft and Internet access. The entire temple has widespread Wi-Fi.

TINT staff have learned from the COVID-19 pandemic how important it is to have the ability to deliver services to those who cannot physically attend. To modernize its ongoing service broadcasts, Freedman said the shrine needs to become a television studio of sorts.

The sanctuary features three pan, tilt, and zoom cameras, and two portable cameras can be used in the sanctuary, atrium, or new patio. The sanctuary also has improved lighting and sound systems, as well as a hearing loop that has been installed in the ground to allow people with hearing aids to hear everything better.

“Even if you don’t live in Cleveland you can still learn here, what we found out that was very important,” Freedman said.

For Eisenberg, completing the renovations was like watching her family receive a much-needed improved home. He pointed out that from the time TINT was established it was a warm and welcoming Hamish – Yiddish congregation.

“Creating a bigger space doesn’t mean you’ll lose heat,” Eisenberg said. “We will continue to work to be that kind of warm and welcoming place, and we will. We will just be able to do it for our faithful in a better way and in a more pleasant space than before. “

Parents scored a victory in June 2020 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that school choice programs must be religion neutral.

The notice meant the government should neither favor nor oppose Maine farmers Troy and Angela Nelson, who prefer religious education for their children. Sadly, government-led discrimination against the couple continued in Palermo, a small town outside of Augusta that does not have public high schools.

Maine allows tuition assistance in such situations, allowing parents to send their children to public or private schools of their choice. The Nelson’s found the best solution for their family at Temple Academy, a sectarian school near Waterville, but the state excludes educational service providers who teach from a religious perspective.

The emphasis on non-sectarian education is relatively new. Maine started its “city class” program in 1873, and for more than 100 years the state has let parents choose secular or religious options. The hands-off approach ended in 1980, when the state chose religious schools and prohibited parents from choosing them.

No longer having an alternative, the Nelson’s moved to a secular private school. They also partnered with the First Liberty Institute and our company, the Institute for Justice, and fought back in federal court along with two other families facing similar discrimination.

Their legal argument is simple: rather than stay out of religion, Maine took sides, violating the Free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Something similar happened in the recent Supreme Court case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, in which the Institute for Justice set a historic precedent on behalf of three Montana families. The decision ended a government policy that prohibited parents from choosing schools simply because of their religious status.

Four months later, however, the 1st US Court of Appeals went in the opposite direction in the Nelsons case and upheld the exclusion of religious schools. To reach decision, the appeals court made an odd distinction between religious “status” and “use”. The appeals court recognized that Maine cannot discriminate against religious schools, according to Espinoza, but it upheld Maine’s ability to discriminate against schools that teach from a religious perspective.

The Nelsons see a distinction without a difference.

By definition, religious schools teach religious things. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be religious. Using the same twisted logic, the Nelson’s could enroll their children in a football league that doesn’t play football. After each practice, they could go to an ice cream shop that does not serve ice cream.

The 6th and 10th Circuits have already rejected the status-use distinction, and Supreme Court Judge Neil Gorsuch has expressed his own skepticism to Espinoza. A little over a year later, on July 2, the High Court agreed to settle the case in Nelsons, Carson v. Makin.

In addition to ending the debate over the use of the statute, the case will rest on a second distinction: that parents – not the government – choose Maine’s Tuition Assistance Program schools.

While a constitutional conflict could arise if the government required children to receive a religious education, parents can make that choice under a generally available public assistance program, which is their right.

New Hampshire, which has educational cities similar to Maine, recently agreed. After an institute for justice trial and months of legislative debate, New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu signed a bill July 7 which ends the exclusion of religious schools from the state student aid program.

Now New Hampshire parents can decide for themselves what is best for them. The Nelson could too, if Maine stopped playing puns and returned power to the people.

Judges refuse to accept case of florist in Washington state sanctioned for refusing to provide flowers for same-sex marriage.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday challenged two families with children attending Christian schools against a Maine tuition assistance program that prohibits taxpayer money from being used to pay taxes. religious educational establishments.

The nine-member Supreme Court, which has a Conservative 6-3 majority, has refused to accept the case of a Colorado florist who refused to provide services for a same-sex marriage, leaving in place a lower court ruling that the florist broke anti-discrimination laws.

The announcement of accepted and rejected cases on Friday marks the end of the Supreme Court’s current tenure, which resulted in a major 6-3 ruling on ideological lines on Thursday that could make it easier for states to adopt voting restrictions. The tribunal’s next term will begin in October.

The judges agreed to hear the appeal of families of children attending Christian schools against a lower court ruling that the Maine program did not violate the First Amendment right of the United States Constitution to the free exercise of the law. religion.

A ruling against the state of Maine could build on other court rulings in recent years allowing public funds to go to religious institutions.

The Boston-based First US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the families last year, ruling that Supreme Court precedents did not bar states from banning public funds from based religious entities. how those dollars would be used.

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed several appeals, including one filed by a florist fined by Washington state for refusing to make a flower arrangement for a same-sex marriage because of her Christian beliefs.

At least four of the nine Supreme Court justices are needed for a case to be heard by the court. Only three Conservatives, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have agreed to hear the florist’s appeal and review the decision.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ordered Washington state courts to reconsider the case involving florist Barronelle Stutzman and her business Arlene’s Flowers.

Upon review, the Washington State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state courts did not act with animosity towards religion when they ruled that Stutzman violated anti-discrimination laws of state by refusing on religious grounds to provide flowers for the marriage of two gay men, Rob Ingersoll and Curt released.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which had represented Ingersoll and Freed, hailed the decision as a victory for LGBTQ rights.

“Today, the Supreme Court confirmed that LGBTQ people should receive equal service when they walk into a store,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, ACLU lawyer representing the couple and director of the ACLU Rights Project. women.

Ingersoll had been a client of Stutzman’s florist for almost ten years and she knew he was gay. But she maintained that her marriage to another man went against her religious beliefs and felt that she could not provide services for the event.

Washington state law requires companies providing services to opposite-sex couples to provide equal service to same-sex couples.

“We hope this decision sends a message to other LGBTQ people that no one should have to suffer the harm we have done,” Ingersoll said in a statement.

In another case in 2018, the United States Supreme Court overturned on narrow legal grounds a decision by a Colorado state agency against a baker who refused to bake a gay marriage cake.

The court did not rule on the discriminatory nature of the baker’s action, but found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown “religious hostility” to the baker’s Christian beliefs.

The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that it would hear a case brought by families in Maine who want to use a state schooling program to send their children to religious schools.

At the heart of the matter is a rule from the Maine Department of Education that allows families who live in cities that do not have public schools to receive public tuition fees to send their children to the public or private school of their choice. This program excludes religious schools.

Families who want to send their children to Christian schools in Bangor and Waterville have filed a lawsuit to try to change that, but have been dismissed in lower federal courts. They appealed to the High Court, and the Supreme Court’s list of orders said on Friday it was handling the case.

The libertarian public interest firm Institute For Justice, which represents families, called the case a “potentially historic case” in a statement released Friday. Michael Bindas, lead counsel in the case, said by “distinguishing religion – and only religion – for exclusion from its tuition assistance program,” Maine has limited the rights of families.

“It is unconstitutional and we are convinced that the Supreme Court will hold it as well,” Bindas said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Maine has successfully defended its rule every step of the way. Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said in a statement that religious schools are excluded from the program “because the education they provide is not equivalent to” public education.

“Parents are free to send their children to such schools if they wish, but not with public funds. I am confident that the Supreme Court will recognize that nothing in the Constitution obliges Maine to include religious schools in its public education system, ”Frey said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine also filed court documents in support of Maine’s rules that exclude religious schools from the tuition program. Maine ACLU legal director Zachary Heiden said he was confident the court would uphold Maine’s rules again.

“Every court, state and federal, that has reviewed Maine’s tuition fee law has found it constitutional,” Heiden said. “We hope the United States Supreme Court agrees.”

The Supreme Court ruled in a Montana case last year that states must give religious schools the same access to public funds that other private schools enjoy. Similar issues have also been raised in other states, such as Vermont and New Hampshire.