Anderson v. Chesterfield County School District is a case in which
a law suit is filed by the ACLU(American Civil Liberties Union) on behalf of a “father
and a son (both
non-believers) who have been ostracized for their objection to repeated
official religious events and activities at New Heights Middle School.” In September,
all students at New Heights Middle School were compelled to attend and
in-school Christian worship rally in which a church minister and a Christian rapper
known as “B-SHOC” were to deliver a sermon. These rallies influenced students
to pray and “sign a pledge dedicating themselves to Jesus”. These rallies are part
of a greater movement in the district in which teachers routinely incorporate
prayer in school activities. Many sporting events and concerts begin with a
school-sponsored prayer and schools host religious events on campus which the
students are urged to attend. Those students who didn’t wish to attend the
assembly at New Heights had to serve an in-school detention. Some students who
are not Christian are harassed and criticized. The complaint is currently filed
by the ACLU for those students who are being punished for not being Christian.
The
actions of the Chesterfield County School District are clearly in violation of
the Free-exercise Clause and, more so, the Establishment Clause. The
Establishment Clause was included in the Constitution by Madison to gain support
of the Leland and Baptists, who feared the creation of a new national church,
in order to get the constitution ratified. The original function of the
establishment clause was to allow all religions to freely practice their
religion without fearing the establishment of another dominating religion. The
Free-Exercise clause states that congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of
a religion, however, as the Reynolds v. US clarifies, it has a right to
interfere with practices. Chesterfield
District has clearly established a religion, Christianity, by not only
allowing, but compelling students to attend Christian rallies and sermons. They
are also openly hosting religious events, allowing students to become
religiously active within a place which is state/government sponsored. A school
allowing for such proselytizing in a place which is under government
sponsorship is the same as the government establishing a religion. On top of that, the school is also punishing
the students which do not wish to attend by giving them an in-school detention.
The school is infringing upon the rights of those students who wish to freely
exercise other religions or no religion and this violates the free-exercise
clause. One can say that the Christians in the school
are only freely exercising Christianity and that they can’t be stopped for this
reason or we would be infringing upon their rights, but this is not the case. The
issue isn’t that Christians are practicing their religion; the issue is that
they are practicing in a state-sponsored place. The issue is even more
complicated because the state has a right to interfere in practices of any
religion, and since sermons, rallies and religious events are all practices and
not just beliefs, the state can rightfully dismantle such practices, especially
because such practices send the message that the state is establishing a
religion. This is clearly a very controversial issue and the wall between the
church and state, as shown by Reynolds v. US case, is very important to
maintain because this allows the Government to administer practices which may
be concealed and disguised under the concept of religious freedom.
Court cases
such as these continuously remind us of the reasons why these clauses were
included in the first place and how these clauses have been interpreted in
order to define the limits of state control and individual freedom. If the
court is to rule in favor of the Andersons then it is clear that the state
still wishes to uphold the separation between church and state, as well as the
establishment and free-exercise clause. If the Court is to rule in favor of the
School District they will mandatorily need to provide evidence as to how these
practices aren’t establishing a religion. One may think that another way to
defend the District is by showing that the school also hosts sermons and
rallies for other religions and religious events. But this still allows for the
same problem to emerge because now the argument can be made that the state is
upholding many religions or religion in general as opposed to Atheism, Agnosticism,
no religion, etc. Religious freedom is mainly defined by these two clauses,
therefore, courts must be very careful as to not interpret these clauses in a
way in which they become ineffective and useless. Religious freedom is being
able to practice a religion, multiple religions, or even no religion without
being persecuted or criticized for it. Also, the religion you choose to
practice must be one which is not forced upon you, especially not by the state.
5 comments:
Good post Aanal. I believe the ACLU got this one right. If students are compelled to attend religious events then the school's behavior towards them because of these practices needs to stop occurring. Under certain conditions students and teachers do have rights under the First Amendment to pray at school and participate in certain religious activities, such as the "meet me at the flagpole" events. Being harassed to attend or ostracized for not attending would be fearful for a student. This represents a clear infringement of the law and the student's rights. I see an obvious slam dunk for the ACLU and their client against the Chesterfield County School District.
Thank you for posting this. I find it very unnerving that the children that did not attend some events had to serve detention. So either they go to essentially a church service or they are punished with detention. The way the events are described, one would think that the school was a private school, but it is not. What made the school (or even the school district) think they could get away with this? The ACLU was in every right to file suit because this is directly against the first amendment, as you stated in your post.
This issue is very interesting in terms of the separation of church and state. However, I am confused on one point that what the main problem is. Is the problem that "the issue is that they (Christians) are practicing in a state-sponsored place" or "all students at New Heights Middle School were compelled to attend and in-school Christian worship rally in which a church minister and a Christian rapper known as “B-SHOC” were to deliver a sermon?" If a school does not compel its students to attend to any religious ceremony or event, does it mean that "the state is establishing a religion?" Do you think both of them are the same?Of course here there is a compulsion but I am asking the question to learn what you are against.
Emrah, I think the issue here is that students are being compelled to attend what are essentially church services while they are at school. Often students will form Christian or other religious groups which are permitted to meet and use school facilities for their activities, but in those cases participation is voluntary and does not infringe on other students' rights. The school's policy of punishing students with detentions for not attending a Christian event is unacceptable and a complete violation of the other students' right to religious freedom.
I agree with Catherine, the way the school is being described seems like a private school. Students who do not wish to attend after or before school activities should not be punish with detention. If rallies were taken place after or before school then the students should not have been punished. If the rallies were taken place during school, then there should have been another location for students to go to if they did not want to attend the rallies. It almost seems like forceful conversion. The students who do not wish to participate are punished which forces them to participate next time. The school seems to be hoping that the word of God will eventually make the students come to these events on their own. I agree with the previous post that the ACLU was right to step in.
Post a Comment