This article describes the actions of
Jessica Ahlquist that took a stand against school officials about a banner that
was being displayed at her public high school. The reason that this banner has
caused considerable problems to arise is because of the fact that the banner
features a prayer, which was offensive to the Ahlquist who is an atheist. “On
Jan. 11, federal judge Ronald R. Lagueux ruled it was unconstitutional for the
banner to hang at the public school,” which is clear that the federal government
saw that this banner was going against the Establishment clause of the first
amendment.
It is clear that the issue that are
present in this article is the fact that this banner seem to some people as an
entanglement of the public school with religion. Although a student wrote the
prayer in 1963, the school was the one that made the decision to hang the
banner for public view. The Establishment Clause has clear implications that
the government was not to favor anyone one religion over another. The banner was
seen to be in favor of the Christian belief with the prayer starting with “Our
Heavenly Father” in which Ahlquist saw that the public school was favoring one
religion over all the others by displaying the banner in the auditorium and
refusing to take it down. The Establishment Clause has been challenged before
about prayer in public school in the Engel v. Vitale case in which the
mandatory prayer that was recited everyday that was written by the Board of
Regents was ruled unconstitutional and struck down by the courts. It was seen
that the government had no business in establishing or promoting a certain
religion with the requirement of a certain prayer in schools. This can be seen
in the case of the banner, even though it was not required to be recited, the
clear acceptance and refusal to take it down by the School Board showed a clear
preference and promotion of one religion.
The school tried to make it appear that
he banner was hung and not taken down because it was part of the “historic and
cultural” aspect of the school and that it has nothing to do with the promotion
of a single religion. It cannot be seen as purely secular matter since the
primary effect of the banner is to promote a particular religions prayer, and
so it its in direct violation of the Establishment Clause. There is no clear
secular point of the banner since it does not display any historical value,
other than being produced by the student in 1963. One can also argue that the
banner was in no way a form of mandatory prayer in public schools and that the
banner was just hung there and that Ahlquist did not have to look at it if it
offended her, in which they would not be seeing this as a religious cause but
that of a free speech case. There seems to be a problem with that in which the court
have ruled before that individuals have the right of free exercise of any
religion of their choosing and to speak freely about it, but the first
amendment does prohibit the government from interfering and accommodating one
religion over another and causing entanglement of Church and State.
2 comments:
The argument was not just that the banner was historic having been written by a student in the past, but that it promoted secular values that are valued in the community. In my opinion though, that does not change the fact that it is still a very Christian prayer. The first line tells you who it is addressed to and the last line confirms that. If those lines had been replaced with something secular then the actual message of the banner would not have been such an issue, but the message seems to have been lost based on the fact that police have to escort her to school.
Angela's comment brings into light the distinction between favoritism for a specific denomination over another and appreciation for local history. As we have discovered in our recent readings, religion in general has played a significant role in shaping our nation, and for that reason can be utilized to honor our past.To me, the intention behind the hanging of the banner is what can determine the constitutionality. If the banner was hung in order to explicitly promote a specific denomination over another, then it is obviously unconstitutional. If the banner was hung in order to honor local history, perhaps it should stay. Will we next refuse to speak of all influences religion has had on our world for fear of choosing favorites?
Post a Comment