In the 19th century, several U.S. states passed what are known as Blaine amendments—constitutional provisos forbidding state funds from going to parochial schools, and in some cases to any religious institutions. These measures, largely the product of anti-Catholic prejudice, were put in jeopardy by a 2020 Supreme Court decision that they run up against the First Amendment’s understanding of religious freedom. Tim Rosenberger and Nicole Stelle Garnett explain the exceptional way that New Hampshire has responded:

The Granite State’s legislature recently enacted legislation that removed the words “sectarian” and “nonsectarian” from its lawbooks and, in so doing, largely eliminated laws that unconstitutionally discriminate against religious organizations. By removing the requirement that services provided in public programs be “nonsectarian,” New Hampshire has broadened the opportunities for the state to cooperate with faith-based organizations and brought its law in line with current First Amendment doctrine.

New Hampshire’s efforts are both politically prudent and morally justified. First, the reforms lessen the state’s exposure to expensive lawsuits. . . . Second, these reforms acknowledge the venerable history of faith-based organizations in America. Such groups have for centuries served as social escalators and safety nets, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, educating the young, and caring for the infirm. At their best, they provide a forum for connection and service in an increasingly isolating world. By repealing laws that discriminate against these religious groups, New Hampshire can deploy taxpayer funds to further their noble efforts.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.