Pro Islamic claims in Maryland School disregarded by supreme court

In 2014, a student from the a public high school in Charles County, Maryland sued the La Plata High School on the grounds that her first amendment rights were violated.  This came about from the student’s world history class and the instruction on the Islamic faith.  The class had an assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer, and because the prayer consists of a profession of faith towards the religion, the student felt that her own religious beliefs in Christianity would be infringed upon.  As well as failing the class, the school required the student to watch a “Pro-Islam” presentation, and the student also felt that this presentation was very much favoring the Islamic faith and advocating against her own Christian faith.  With this, the student and her family saw an advocation of Islam being projected by the school as well as an anti-christian view.  Despite these claims, the supreme court rejected the case and decided that the lower courts had made the correct decision in ruling in favor of the schools.

The school system was deemed to be in the right, on the grounds of the first amendment’s establishment clause.  The court interpreted the instruction of Islam to be appropriate on behalf of the school’s responsibilities.  The school and its administration are in charge of controlling the methods and speech used for their instruction, and given the facts of the case, the supreme court approved of the decisions of the lower appeal courts.  In Stone v. Graham, the court provides useful interpretation on how the establishment clause should be used in these situations.  There is assumed to be an educational motivation in the inclusion of the religion in the curriculum.  Similarly, in Engel v. Vitale, the court decided that the government must remain neutral in matters such as non-mandatory prayers, deciding that even if a prayer Is not required to be recited, it still is not a neutral stance taken by the group.  This should be contrasted to the case in question, as the assignment to write out a prayer is purely educational, and is not under the same question as that of Engel v. Vitale.  The courts determination was correct in deciding that the school was in the right.  To have the courts deciding on issues such as these is a problem for the first amendment, as the supreme courts should not be micro-managing each and every aspect of religious material in educational settings.  Justice Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jeffrey, states: “As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means” (292).  This rings true for this case, being that the school is simply showing how religion can be used in a sectarian way.  While Islam, especially with its political significance, might be contrary to a particular student’s religious beliefs, that does not rule it out for being an acceptable subject to be taught by the educational systems provided by the government.

This case is also very relevant to the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Lemon test was created in its resultant decision.  The Lemon test provides a threefold question for the determination of a case’s validity in line with the establishment clause and the first amendment.  With regard to this test, the decision for this case might seem like excessive entanglement, though religious studies serves a clear sectarian purpose.  Additionally, there is a clear state interest in education, and there is not enough reason to posit that there is any favoring or aid to the religion on behalf of the state and its school.

I feel that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision to comply with the lower court’s decision.  There is sectarian purpose behind teaching various religions, especially considering the context of this case, as the student was a part of a world history class.  If there ever was a class or similar situation where a state school was showing establishment by directly supporting the observance of a religion or the beliefs behind the religion, I believe it would be much more clear than a case such as this.  The neutrality of the state and this particular religion were upheld by the school’s instruction, and this seems to show fairly clearly how religion should be implemented in public schooling.  There should not be a complete separation of all religion from educational settings, as there is a state interest in its instruction.  That said, the courts should remain consistent in these such decisions to ensure that they remain in this true neutral position.  To continue in this notion, as was decided in this instance, is to ensure that the government upholds its state interest and neither advances nor detracts from religious institutions.

Pro-Life Sidewalk Counselors and Planned Parenthood

In 2005, the city of Pittsburgh implemented a law that allowed the municipality to ban leafleting and other forms of free speech in the buffer zone around the facilities of “abortionists, eye doctors, dentists, and any therapeutic, healing, or health-building provider.” Pro-life activists, many of whom would protest, picket, and pray in the buffer zones on the sidewalks surrounding abortion clinics saw this as a violation of their first amendment rights and sued in September of 2014, the year in which the mayor at the time enforced this ordinance.

 In March of 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania refused to halt the law and partially dismissed the lawsuit. The prosecution appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which found that the lower court had not followed the Supreme Court precedent set by McCullen v. Coakley. However, the lower court still upheld the ordinance, so the prosecution appealed yet again, and on October 18th, 2019, the Third Circuit ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional, thus allowing peaceful protests, so long as they are “peaceful, quiet, and conducted as one-on-one conversations.” These sidewalk counselors will be limited to one or two on the sidewalk at a time. According to Nikki Bruni, the lead plaintiff in the case, claims that the sidewalk counselors are not permitted to have a physical sign, but are allowed in the zone if “you’re reaching out to girls.”

 Though not mentioned in this article, it should be noted that protests outside Planned Parenthood clinics have gotten violent and have resulted in those wishing to enter the clinics feeling harassed and verbally abused by protesters. However, there were no reports in the case that would indicate that there were any incidents in Pittsburgh.

 The question is: Does the Pittsburgh ordinance violate protester’s rights to free speech and free exercise?

 I believe the answer is yes, the ordinance does infringe upon the protester’s rights to free speech and free exercise, and that the Third Circuit was right in ruling the ordinance unconstitutional.

 First, the sidewalk and the buffer zone, though it might be surrounding Planned Parenthood, is public property. Thus, the government has no constitutional right to restrict free speech, including religious speech and preaching. If it was decided that Planned Parenthood or any other property owner also owns the sidewalk that connects to their property, then Planned Parenthood could deny protesters themselves. But a law that restricts people exercising their constitutional rights on public property (provided there is no threat to safety or order) is quite clearly unconstitutional.

 Second, there is no compelling government interest in preventing protesters from voicing their opinion on public property, provided there are threats of violence, riots, obstructing travel or safety concerns. Presumably, this ordinance was enacted to ensure the peace in the streets and to avoid any risk of harassment of individuals utilizing Planned Parenthood’s services or its employees. But to preemptively deny people their first amendment rights is unconstitutional, especially when there is no known history of violence. There is nothing inherent to this particular Planned Parenthood location that would make the government believe that there is more of a risk of harassment or rioting, and thus justifying implementing preemptive measures.

 The common example of a limit to free speech is yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. Doing this risks harm to others. But the solution is not to ban speech in movie theaters, because it is unfair to take away the rights of others based on a possibility of someone breaking the law. There are laws and a legal system in place to serve justice to those who break the law. Similarly, it is unconstitutional to ban speech to preemptively and without credible evidence.

However, I am unsure as to whether is ruling is entirely fair. As mentioned before, according to Bruni, protesters are not allowed to have a sign when in the buffer zone. I assume this is to not attract massive crowds to the buffer zone, which is understandable in some respects, as that likely increases the risk of danger. Additionally, it is not imperative to the protester’s religious exercise to use a sign, though it would help spreading their message. It seems to me this is where the compromise between free speech and safety comes into play. protesters are allowed to communicate their message, but only without a sign and without attracting large crowds. I think this is a reasonable compromise, but I could see many people believing that this is too restrictive on free exercise.

Sources:

https://www.post-gazette.com/news/crime-courts/2019/10/19/pittsburgh-abortion-buffer-zone-appeal-bruni/stories/201910190046

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2019/10/18/the-supreme-court-struck-down-anti-free-speech-buffer-zones-so-why-does-pittsburgh-still-have-them

Banning Religious Exemptions to Vaccinations

In 2018, Yvonne Bair, a worker at Memorial Healthcare Hospital in Owosso, Michigan, was fired after she refused to get a flu shot because it contradicted her religious beliefs as a follower of Jesus Christ. Bair told the hospital that her religious beliefs prohibited her from “the injection or ingestion of foreign substances and require her to rely on natural methods to maintain her health”. As an alternative, Bair offered to wear a mask, but the Hospital rejected this offer.

On February 13th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit to the Detroit U.S. District Court on behalf of Bair. They claimed that the hospital’s failure to accommodate her religious beliefs against receiving flu shots violated her First Amendment Rights. The Free Exercise Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. But Memorial Healthcare Hospital defended its opposition to the lawsuit stating that firing this employee followed proper protocol. The hospital states “In this case, Memorial Healthcare’s position is that the applicant refused to follow policies intended to protect and safeguard patient and staff health and safety”.

Recently in June, Memorial Healthcare was ordered to pay $74,418--$34,418 in back-pay to Bair, $20,000 each for compensatory and punitive damages--to settle the lawsuit filed by the EEOC regarding religious discrimination. Along with this, the hospital was required to post its revised policy and procedures, as well as train hospital staff regarding religious discrimination. After a long year of dispute, the hospital decided to pay these fines and give this lawsuit a rest.

I found this case to very closely resemble Jacob’s New York Supreme Court case that upheld the ban on religious exemptions to vaccinations for school children in response to an extensive measles epidemic. This law required children to get their first shot within two weeks of school and show documentation within the first month of school that they have follow-up appointments, or else they will be kicked out of school. Although children can still receive medical exemptions, New York state has made it much harder to get them. Justice Denise Hartman of Albany ruled that this decision was based on the “magnitude of disruption and potential harm” to the community. 

Cases regarding mandatory vaccinations and whether or not they are lawful have been going on for a very long time. Dating all the way back to 1904, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Jacobson refused to abide by a Massachusetts law which allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. He was fined five dollars. However, the case went to The Supreme Court which upheld the state’s authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The ruling claimed that this law was a legitimate exercise of the state’s power to protect the health and society of the community. 

In my opinion, both this New York Supreme Court case decision banning religious exemptions and the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case rest on too much precedence. I believe that Memorial Healthcare’s decision was correct at first because the government has a compelling state health interest that outweighs Bair’s personal religious beliefs. I do believe that this is a slippery slope because not only has this and similar issues been seen in other First Amendment cases, but also it does not just affect one person but the community as a whole for both their health and safety. If refusing to get these vaccinations did not affect the society’s health and safety as a whole, then it would be a completely different story.

Bring Your Bible to School Day

The Governor of Kentucky, Matt Bevin, has recently come under fire for promoting national “Bring Your Bible to School Day” on twitter. The “Bring Your Bible to School Day” was a student-led event, sponsored by a Christian organization, Focus on the Family. This event comes after Kentucky passed a law allowing public schools to teach a class on Bible literacy. In his endorsement of the “Bring Your Bible to School Day,” Governor Bevin tweeted “The Judeo-Christian principles that are bound in this book are timeless, containing an amazing amount of history, knowledge, wisdom and guidance…” along with a video of him spouting “And I would encourage you please, don't just bring your Bible to school, but read your Bible"..."Bring it, share it with others. If you have an extra Bible, bring it and share it with someone who maybe doesn't have one, (who) maybe has never read this book." There are two components to this issue. The first is that there is a law that permits teaching a Bible literacy class in public school and the second is that the Governor endorsed this law and even encouraged children to participate in this aspect of the Christian faith. Although this law of teaching a class on Bible literacy was passed, some individuals and groups think that this, along with the Governor's endorsement, is an example of an establishment of religion.

This scenario is not unique in combining issues of the establishment clause and schools. For example, in Abington v. Schempp, the court ruled that it was in violation of the establishment clause to sponsor Bible readings and recitations. The first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was created as a way to protect religious minorities from majority rule. There have been many court cases that have set precedent when it comes to dealing with cases related to the establishment clause. One of the most famous cases dealing with the intersection of the establishment clause and schools is Lemon v. Kurtzman. Using a separationist approach, the court established what is now referred to as the Lemon test. The Lemon test offers three prongs courts can use to determine whether there was a violation of the establishment clause. In order for a piece of legislation to pass the Lemon test, it must serve a secular purpose, may not inhibit or advance religion, and may not include excessive entanglement with the government. The Lemon test sets the precedent for what is considered an establishment of religion, and by examining this legislation under the Lemon test, it fails. Although the purpose is secular in regards to expanding the knowledge of children, one could argue that the law advances religion. Additionally, there would be excessive entanglement between religion and government because the government would have to ensure that the class was not being used to indoctrinate the students.

I, however, take an accommodationist stance on issues regarding the establishment of religion and therefore disagree with the separationist view presented in the lemon test. An accommodationist would argue that the aiding of religion should be allowed, as long as there is no privilege of one religion over another religion. I think that this law and the Governor’s endorsement of the national “Bring Your Bible to School Day” is only unconstitutional because it is an establishment of only the Christian religion. The government can have relations with religion and even encourage some aspects of religion, however, if only for a specific religion, that would be unconstitutional. A separationist approach would want to prohibit any aid and encouragement to any religion. However, similar to the stance of many Bible literacy class proponents, I believe that this class will offer a “well-rounded education and understanding of history.” My issue is not with the content itself but the availability for all religions to have the same opportunity as the majority (Christians).

Neutrality is key in understanding what is and is not an establishment of religion. In order to be neutral, there must not be neutrality solely between religion and secularism, but also between religions. In this particular case, one could argue that there is neutrality between religion and secularism because the children have the opportunity to take both secular and religious classes. However, there was no neutrality between religions. The Bible is the holy text for only the Christian faith. Therefore, other religions such as Islam and Judaism are being discriminated against. In order to truly have neutrality between religions, there should be literacy classes taught for every religious holy text or the class itself should encompass the literacy of multiple holy texts. I realize that this may not be practical, but even if every religion that exists could not have a class taught about it, I believe that if a student or someone in the community of a particular religion wants to have a literacy class, they should be granted that opportunity. The alternative to not teaching that Bible literacy class will then privilege secularism over religion.

Encouraging the practice of a specific religion and respecting the existence of all religions are two distinct things. The Governor, an agent of the state, specifically encouraged the practices of the Christian faith. This again shows the lack of neutrality between religions. The Governor should either not encourage the reading of any holy text, or encourage the reading of all holy texts, not just the Bible. He could have easily written a statement that encouraged young people to tap into their faith and read their respective holy text. For some that could be the Bible, and for others that could be Quran, but there would be no endorsement of a singular religion. In all, I think it is appropriate for the government to aid religion in some capacity in order to remain neutral between religion and nonreligion, but I think that it is equally important for the government to be careful what programs they implement for a specific religion, in order to stay neutral between religions as well.

Does the RFRA Protect Religious Colleges from Mandated Contraceptive Coverage?

           Geneva College, a small liberal arts college, in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania was founded as a Christian university with the motto “for Christ and for Country”. Geneva College’s mission statement reads as “a Christ-centered academic community that provides a comprehensive education to equip students for faithful and fruitful service to God and neighbor”. The college aims to help students integrate the teachings of Christ into all aspects of human life. In 2011, the President Obama’s Affordable Care Act introduced a new mandate requiring employers to provide coverage for over 20 abortion inducing and contraceptive drugs and devices as well as sterilization. This mandate required employers to do so “regardless of their religious or moral convictions” and punished opposition by heavy penalties through the IRS. Given that Geneva College was founded on Christian principles, the institution believes that life begins at conception and therefore felt this mandate went against their innate beliefs. Therefore, in February of 2012, Geneva College, assisted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that this mandate violates their rights provided by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In June of 2013, Geneva College saw success when the district court suspended enforcing the abortion mandate for students, and later in December for employers as well. 

            Although Geneva College was satisfied by the decision, in 2014, the issue came up against with the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. HobbyLobby argued that the accommodation for non-profit religious organizations should be extended to for profit organizations as well under the RFRA and free exercise clause. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that for the purposes of the RFRA corporations could be considered as “persons” and therefore requirement them to provide contraceptives (which they consider to equal abortion) is a substantial burden on their religious beliefs. To put nonprofits and corporations alike under a burden where they must go against their principles or face substantial fines is too extreme. A key distinction here is that the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question, not all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds. This distinction allowed the court to combat the slippery slope precedence this case could set. Following the Hobby Lobby Decision, Geneva College asked the Supreme Court to hear its case in order to make sure this accommodation was permanent. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts with the instruction to “to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise". The case settled in October of 2018 when the lower court “ordered the federal government to permanently cease enforcement of the Affordable Care Act's abortion-pill mandate, which the court declared violated Geneva College’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act”. Geneva College thanked the court for upholding their religious liberty and allowing them to go forth “to protect the lives of unborn children, acting within our responsibility as image bearers of God and as citizens” and for affirming their freedom and permanent protection from the mandate. 

            The key issue in this case is does the RFRA allow Geneva College to deny its employees and students health coverage of contraception based on the religious objections of the institution and does this objection qualify them for exemption from governmental fines? The Geneva case relates to the case Bob Jones University vs. United States. In the Bob Jones case, the university was unsuccessful in retaining IRS tax exempt status due to its racial discrimination. The Supreme Court upheld that the RFRA did not protect Bob Jones tax exempt status because not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The court held that implementing discrimination goes against government self-interest because it provided no public benefit and violated a “fundamental national public policy”. I believe that the Bob Jones case and the Geneva College case are contrasting. Although it is safe to say that most Americans would view racial discrimination as a universal ill, the Bob Jones University believes that interracial marriage goes against its religious convictions just the same as the Geneva College believes contraceptives goes against its religious beliefs. In terms of the RFRA, I believe both cases place a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the universities, however, the compelling state interest is where it differs for me. I believe the Supreme Court views combatting racism as a compelling state interest as it goes against America's ideals, whereas, contraceptives do not necessarily do so. However, for me, this is a slippery slope, as state interests are not strictly defined, and in this case, allowing Geneva College an accommodation, and not Bob Jones, the court is privileging the wider pro-life community, over the religious beliefs of Christian fundamentalists. Therefore, I do not agree with the decision in the Geneva case because it goes against the precedence made in the Bob Jones case, in my opinion, in order to prioritize the rights of pro-life Christians over fundamentalists which is unjust.

Protecting Confessions or Protecting Child Abusers?

Hear Church Sexual Abuse Survivors Voice Support for SB 360

California State Senator, Jerry Hill, has created a great uproar within the Catholic community. Senator Hill brought attention to one of the oldest accusations in the book, which is that priests not only molest children, but they also get away with it. We have all heard the puns made about priests liking little boys but we tend to ignore the horrific truth behind these jokes. Survivors of child abuse at the hands of Catholic priests goes on without the bat of an eye. Their painful stories go uncared for due to the religious hierarchy that makes it so that priests are untouchable beings within their communities. 

In the year 2019, Senator Hill pushed to pass the Senate Bill 360. This bill would have unseal the confidentiality between priests. If a priest were to confess to another clergymen about his involvement in child abuse, then the priest that is confessed to must then report this to the authorities. The purpose of this bill was to prevent the further abuse of more children and to bring peace to those who have suffered. 

Although this may sound fair to some, it is a complete violation and abuse of governmental power to others. Confession is a sacred moment in the Catholic faith where sinners are allowed to repent their sins in hope to release themselves from their worldly vices. The secretion and confidentiality of confession is what keeps the sacrament so pure. This is a vital step to achieving complete forgiveness from God and therefore, opening the doors for heaven. Furthermore, many would argue that the reason why confession works is because the sinner knows that they can reveal all of their sins and will only receive God’s judgement and forgiveness through the words of the priest at the confession stand. 

If the Senate Bill 360 were to be passed it would mean that priests would have to hold their tongues back during their own confessions. However, this bill would only apply to cases of child abuse. If a priest were to confess to other illegal activities, those wouldn’t be reported to the authorities. Nevertheless, it is still viewed as the state overstepping their role within the Catholic faith. Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gomez, argues that if this bill is passed then it will not only be “a mortal threat to the religious freedom of Catholics” but it will also “allow the government to enter into our confessionals to dictate the terms of our personal relationship with Jesus.” Through these statements, Archbishop Gomez also called for the unity of all Catholic priests and followers around the world. Thus came the #KeepTheSeal campaign that would deliver thousands of signatures, letters and emails to the lawmakers in California in an effort to prevent the Senate Bill 360. 

So far, this case is unlike any other case we have reviewed in our class. This is a case of deciding whether the Free Exercise Clause trumps over the protection of the innocent young children of America. 

As a person who was raised Catholic, I completely understand the importance of the sacrament that is confession, however, I do not believe that it should be used to shield child predators. If a priest were to confess to abusing children and is repenting then he should also repent in the eyes of the American law. The damage that he has done to children should also be paid for during his time on Earth and not just during a twenty minute confession conversation. If a person truly repents for their actions then they should be prepared to pay their dues by the way the American court sees fit. There is no “prayer fee” assigned to a rapist that can fully bring peace to rape victims. Who is to say that they won’t do it again after confessing their sin?

The sacrament of confession will still be practiced and priests will still be trusted, in no way will this bill stop the free exercise of religion to Catholic followers. What this bill will do is bring justice to the children who cannot defend themselves and feel towered by the authority of Catholic priests. 

Despite my own opinion, Senator Hill has withdrawn the bill for this year due to the lack of support for it. There is hope for the bill to be reopened in the following years but not for 2019. Hopefully support for the Senate Bill 360 will gain momentum in the following months and even inspire other states to think of their own version of the Senate Bill 360. 

Child abuse is child abuse, rape is rape, it does not matter who does it, once it’s done the child’s life is changed forever. Why should the abuser’s life stay the same? 

For more information click on the links below: 

Angelus News: “SB 360 withdrawn by sponsor day before key hearing”

The Sacrament to Be: “Here’s some penance: The state wants to hear church confessions about abuse, let it”