P.O) FREEDOM FROM RELI BOX 750 + MADISON, WI $3701 « (608) 256-8900 » WWW.FFRF.ORG June 6, 2018 SENT VIA EMAIL & US. MAIL: ‘The Honorable Skyler Wheeler Representative, lowa House District 4 1007 B. Grard Ave. Des Moines, (A 50319 Re: Religious Promotion Using Government Email Address Dear Representative Wheeler: 1am writingon behalf ofthe Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in regards toa constitutional violation involving official email communications to your constituents. FFRP is a national nenprofit organization with more than 33,000 members across the country, including members in [owa. FFRF"s purposes are to protect the constituticnal separation between state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism. ‘A-concerned constituent contacted FFRF to report that you have placed a bible verse beneath the signature block of your official email address (Skyler, Wheeler@legis iowa gov). We understand that the verse reads: "And they said, Believe on (si) the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved... Acts 16:31.” Email from this address are signed “Rep, Skyler Wheeler, House Distrist 4,” and include a ink to your official government website. We write to request that you remove the bible verse from your signature Mock. Itis not for government officials in our secular republic to tell their constituents what deity to believe in, any. Doingso violates the Bstablishment Clause of the Constitution Government officals cannot appear to endorse religion. See, e., Capitol Square Review and Advieory Ba. v. Pinette, 518 US. 753, 787 (1995) (Souter, J., concurring) (Effects matter to the Establishment Clause, and one, principal way that we assess them ia by asking whether the practice in question ereates the appearance of endorsenient to the reascnable observer.") (emphasis aéded). In this instance, the inclusion of a biblical message on én official email to constituents creates a clear appearance of endorsement of religion over non-religion generally, ard Christianity in particular. Surely, a reasonable constituent who reads this ‘email would conclude that Christianity i preferred overall other faiths in your district, ‘This strikes directly at the heart of the First Amendment: “{T]he prohibition against governmentsl endorsement of religion preclude(s] government from conveying or attempting toconvey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred." ly. of Allegheny v. ACLU, Greater Piteburgh Chapter, 482 US. 5 (1980) The goal is to censure that the government does not “appear to take a position on questions of religious belief fd. at 394. This is because governmental endorsement of religion is inherently divisive. The First Amendment was written precisely for this reason: “The Framers and the ‘Dan like ad Anais Laure Gayl, Ce Pradenscitioone oftheir time intonded to guard... againct the aivie divicivencce that fllowe whom the government weighs in on one side of religious debate; nothing does a better job of roiling society..." MeCreory Cly. v. ACLU, 545 US. 844, 876 (2005). Furthermore, federal courts have long recognized that governmental endorsement of religion, is not only divisive, but alienating. As e member of the lowa House of Representatives, you represent a diverse population that consists not only of Christians, but also many constituents with no religious belief at all. Infact, itis likely that the non-religious make up 8 significant portion ofthe people you represent. The non-religious are the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. population by religious identification, accounting for 24% ofall adult Americans and 38% of Americans born after 1987—numbers that continue to grow." Sending emails encouraging all who read it to believe in the Christian god “eends the ancillary message to. nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members ofthe political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored ‘members ofthe political community.” Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 USS. 290, 308~ 10 2001) (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J., oneurxing) Of course, you are still fre to diseuss your faith, even publicly, provided you are not acting in your official capacity—not as Representative Wheeler, but as Mr, Wheeler, private citizen, In your personal capacity you can freely exercise your religion as you see fit. But while exercising the duties of your office—such as communicating with your constituents from your government email address—you are bound by the Establishment Clause and cannot use your office to promote your personal religious choices. The Supreme Court has been explicit on this point: “We hold that when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.” Gareet v Ceballos, 547 US. 410, 421 (2008), You are charged with great responsibility and have been given significant trust by your constituents, including those who may not share your personal religious viewpoints. Observing a strict separation of state and church is inclusive of all your constituents and hhonors the First Amendment. We appreciate the courtesy of your attention to this matter, and encourage you to stand up for the precious constitutional separation between church and state, which unites and protects all ctizens—believers and non-believers alike Sincerely, GE. MeNamara, Bea Robert G. Ingersoll Legal Fellow Freedom From Religion Foundation. CEMlbe "Rabert P. Jones Daniel Cox America’ Changing Religious Hentity, Punic Reuciox Restancn ‘nemstore ep 6 2017), available at we pesverpnpcantentuplands3017H0Q7I Religion Rept pl