Anderson v. Chesterfield County School District

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.