Emily Chaney, a Christian student at Pike Central High, created a “prayer locker,” where students can submit confidential requests for other students to pray for them. Based on Facebook posts from the school’s art department and other students, it appears that a faculty member at the high school gave Chaney this idea to create a prayer locker. However, someone in their community sent a complaint letter to a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit organization that advocates the separation of church and state, which included an image of the now-deleted Facebook post from the school’s art department. The organization argued the prayer locker is “likely a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Americans United staff attorney Ian Smith signed the letter to the school district, which describes various legal precedents that uphold the separation of church and state in schools. “It is pretty straightforward that public schools cannot display religious messages, and they can’t encourage their students to pray or engage in religious activity,” Smith said in an interview.
In addition, there have been other cases in Kentucky that question the separation between church and state. Just starting this year, Kentucky schools are required by state law to display the national motto, “In God We Trust,” in a prominent place. This raises the question of how a prayer locker differs from a religious national motto. Smith weighed in on behalf of Americans United, saying that the two are essentially the same. Smith later went on to explain the fact that the federal courts permit symbolic gestures like the national motto under the doctrine of “ceremonial deism,” a legal term used to designate governmental religious references to be only ritual and non-religious through long customary usage. U.S. Supreme Court Justices William Brennan Jr. and Sandra Day O’Connor argued that even if “In God We Trust” has a religious origin, it has been used for government purposes for so long that the phrase has lost its religious meaning.
In reference to the prayer locker, Smith said that the federal courts have been clear that students can organize and advertise religious activities that take place after school hours, however they can not use school resources or staff to communicate their religious messages. The school’s district attorney recommended that the school should remove the prayer locker. In response, Emily Chaney stated that maintaining this locker was “the biggest blessing” and she will continue to spread her prayers in person in the cafeteria as an exercise of her religious freedom.
I found a connection between this case and the case we read in class, Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens By and Through Mergens. The school administration at Westside High School denied permission to a group of students to form a Christian club due to the fact that the Equal Access Act was deemed constitutional because it served an overriding secular purpose by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of philosophical, political, and other types of speech. This case connected to this article on the basis that both focused on a student-run religious practice. In both instances, there was no faculty member directly involved, which creates a bigger distinction between the government and the religious act performed because the blame for the disruption of the division between religion and state fell solely on the students.
Another case that related to this article is Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. The Court concluded by stating that the University could not stop all funding of religious speech. There is no Establishment Clause violation for UVA honoring the duties under the Free Speech Clause, which violates freedom of speech. Similar to this article, Pike Central High has the ability to shut down the prayer locker, as UVA died funding to the publication titled Wide Awake. By regulating this content, Pike Central High adhere the viewpoint from the government aspect, which does not stop the communication of prayer, but only the government-owned locker promoting religion.
Another case that related to this article is Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. The Court concluded by stating that the University could not stop all funding of religious speech. There is no Establishment Clause violation for UVA honoring the duties under the Free Speech Clause, which violates freedom of speech. Similar to this article, Pike Central High has the ability to shut down the prayer locker, as UVA died funding to the publication titled Wide Awake. By regulating this content, Pike Central High adhere the viewpoint from the government aspect, which does not stop the communication of prayer, but only the government-owned locker promoting religion.
In my opinion, I agree that the school has a right to stop the prayer locker due to it being government property, which is paid for by the community's taxes. Under the Establishment Clause, something that the government and community own cannot promote a specific religion. By keeping the locker up and running at Pike Central High, it creates a slippery slope between religion and state, deeming it unconstitutional. However, I also believe that Emily Chaney has a right to protect her freedoms of speech and religion by stating and promoting her religious beliefs outside of school hours and off school property. In the article, she states that she can and will keep spreading her Catholic beliefs throughout her community, promoting the Free Exercise Clause, and I believe that is well within her rights.
11 comments:
I think the school district should not be able to shut down the prayer locker. At my high school and others I have seen, many people are allowed to place magnets and stickers on the outsides of their lockers. If schools are going to allow this to take place, they are essential creating an open public forum. If there is this open public forum, religious messages cannot be limited. Who is to say I can’t put a magnet on my locker that encourages people to drop in letters religious or not? The students are not forcing any religion on anyone. It is an opt in program.
I agree with the author, and want to respond to the previous comment. I disagree completely that this is the same as creating an open public forum, especially because in this case, the action was directly suggested by a faculty member. Although expression of belief on lockers is acceptable, a promotion of that same belief should not be allowed in schools in any way. This would violate the Establishment clause, even if done by a student. Although it is opt in, it still outwardly suggests that religion promotion on school property is acceptable, which is inherently false.
I think the biggest problem with this is that a faculty member suggested that a student do this. As a state employee, I think it is unconstitutional for them to engage in speech that promotes a religion when they are working as a state employee. Regarding the locker itself, I believe it is unconstitutional for the school to force the student to take it down. Though it may be school property, it is ostensibly "rented" by the student, who, representing only herself, should be able to voice her opinion. Any student of any religious or anti-religious background is free to do the same.
The main issue I have with this case is that a faculty member suggested this to the student. However, if the student came up with the idea of her own volition, I think that she is well within her rights to do so. I take an accommodationist approach when it comes to cases regarding the establishment clause, so as long as other religions can do the same, they should be allowed. Lockers with secular messages are warranted, so in order to maintain neutrality, this student should have the right to exercise her right to free exercise of religion.
I believe that the court made the right decision. Although I understand that the locker is intended to be the student's space for the year, in reality, it is still government property and therefore it is a message that will be associated with the public school system. For me, this case is too much of a slippery slope especially given that it was suggested by a teacher.
I agree with Meghan’s opinion on this case due to the clear establishment of religion presented here. The details of this case are important to note, as a faculty member at the high school gave Chaney the idea to create a prayer locker. Additionally, the locker uses public property during school hours to promote a religious activity. Due to these two facts, there is direct aid of religion as well as excessive entanglement between a public employee and religion.
Since the funding of this locker came from public taxes, and a faculty member of the school was involved in the creation of the prayer locker, I believe that this is a violation of the establishment clause. If the student purchased her own mailbox and set it up after school hours, with no faculty involvement, I believe that this would be a constitutional form of free exercise.
I agree with the author’s opinion that they should shut down the prayer locker because it is on government property that is publicly funded so therefore, I believe that there is no clear separation of church and state. As Meghan and other commenters stated, I believe that the student has the right to have this prayer locker up if it is after school hours, off of school property, and has no faculty involved.
I disagree with Ian Smith's quotation in the article that the locker "encourage[s]...students to pray or engage in religious activity.” The school would be allowing, and not promoting the religion by letting the locker remain on its grounds. Michael makes a compelling argument regarding the fact that the student is technically renting a locker, and should therefore be allowed to continue using it. Aside from the fact that students are using the locker, which is public property (that is temporarily the student's property) the prayer intentions and the act of praying appear private.
I believe with most of the comments that this is an establishment of religion because the locker is government funded and the idea by a staff member to make the locker a religious symbol demonstrates a direct establishment. I think this is different from a public forum where students are allowed to decorate their own lockers however they want because this is a locker clearly made for one religion to use for prayer, and that is an establishment of that religion over others. I believe this case would be more controversial if it wasn't during school hours and wasn't initiated by a staff member.
I disagree with most of the commenters that this was establishment on the grounds that the locker was funded by tax-payer dollars. I completely agree with Jala's sentiment in that the issue with this case was that the teacher (a state employee) made the recommendation to the student. (This in itself could have backfired tremendously, especially if the student had been an ardent atheist.) I also agree with Will's point that the lockers are effectively being used as a means for public forum among students. If students can display secular messages, they should also be able to display religious ones.
Post a Comment