Smith County, Tennessee is made up of a diverse community of individuals who identify with many different religions, such as Christianity, Muslim, and even those who identify as atheist. The Smith County High School and Middle School in Carthage, Tennessee are being accused of promoting and endorsing Christian religious beliefs on their properties through school-sponsored religious activities, and conveying religious messages to their students for many years. These activities include school-sponsored prayer at athletic and school events; the use of religious symbols on the walls of the school’s building, and teachers pushing their Christian faith onto their students. The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee and the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of two families close to the schools, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the promotion of religion by the Smith County School System. This case is called Butler v Smith County.
Kelly Butler is the father of two children who attend the high school in Carthage, Tennessee. Mr. Butler is a U.S. Army veteran who believes strongly in the constitutional freedoms he fought to defend during service, and one of those freedoms he expresses is the right to decide for himself what faith, if any, he is going to follow and promote to his children. Mr. Butler and his two children are atheist, and they feel “shunned” and “unwelcome” in the Smith County School System community because they don’t share the beliefs of the school and oppose their religious activities. After sharing his concerns with the school board, he was ignored. Butler also speaks on behalf of his friends Sharona Carr and Jason Carr, parents of children within the school system who are atheists as well.
The schools are being accused of school-sponsored prayer. This included prayer in school-day assemblies, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies. During such events, the prayer-giver, who is a student, will ask the students and staff to bow their heads and pray. The Board of Education has a moment-of silence policy that has the principle make an announcement each morning telling the students to take a moment of silence and tells the teaches to take no other action during this silent period. Along with in school prayer, every Smith County High School home football game begins with a Christian prayer delivered over the public-address system. A group was also brought into the middle school to distribute Bibles to anyone who wanted one. Along with the distribution of Bibles, Bibles are presented all around the school with no secular reason. Lastly, Christian symbols are present, such as a giant Latin cross saying “In God We Trust,” and scripture written on the hallway walls.
The First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This was created to give citizens their freedom of religion and to protect themselves from government endorsement of any particular religion. The problem here with Butler v Smith County is that is seems the Smith County School System is completely endorsing the Christian religion. If a teacher promotes religion at a public school, this is considered government endorsement of a religion because that school is publicly funded and the teachers are paid by the state. There are similar cases that have dealt with issues of establishment of religion in schools. One in particular is Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000). This case dealt with elected student chaplains from a school publicly giving prayer over the address system before each home football game. This was decided in court as being unconstitutional because the student was given permission from the school to give prayer publicly on public property. Although the games were not mandatory for fans, they were however mandatory for players, coaches, and others working the game. These individuals that were forced to be there were coerced to part take and listen to the Christian prayer. This is similar to Butler v Smith County where the school is allowing students to give public prayer during school events on school property.
I believe the Smith County School System is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by their endorsement of Christianity. There are no secular purposes for providing prayer at school events, and although the prayer is student led, it is encouraged by the school and given on school property, which is government funded. The Establishment Clause allows people like Kelly Butler and his children to be in public spaces without feeling “shunned” or “unwelcome” simply because of their religious belief or lack thereof. Whenever students are asked to bow their heads and pray, regardless if they are told they must or if it is voluntary, there is coercion involved. These students, the staff members, and individuals attending the school functioned events are coerced to participate in Christian prayer, which is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Just as Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe was decided as unconstitutional, I believe this will have the same result.
10 comments:
I completely agree with the author in this case. I feel as if the public school in this case is in clear violation of multiple establishment issues. The giant cross and repeated use of prayer within everyday activities at the school is a textbook endorsement case. The real question in this case is not whether or not the school violated the Establishment Clause, but what the government should do to correct the wrong hidden by the school board.
I agree that there are many violations of the establishment clause in this case. Since attending school is a mandatory practice, coercing and promoting religious messages on school property is a violation of the establishment clause. The most prominent violations to me are the symbols on school property including the Latin cross saying “In God We Trust,” and scripture passages written on the hallway walls. These clearly endorse and a religion, and I can see how parents who are not Christian may feel as though their children are being unconstitutionally imprinted upon.
I agree with the author and preceding comments that this is a violation of the establishment clause. This is similar to Lee v Weisman in that there is necessarily coercion by the school happening here, which constitutes establishment of religion. This is an even greater issue when dealing with kids at a public school, but it constitutes establishment regardless.
I agree with the author and previous commenters that this is a clear violation of the establishment clause. Not only are these violations directly against the Lemon test, the fact that they are all pro Christian messages are even more violating. This is a key example of when preference for religion over non religion results in minority isolation.
I agree with the author and previous commenters that this school is imposing multiple establishment issues. I agree with the author that the issue of school prayer should be struck down with the same reasoning as in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, since it is essentially the same situation. Although the Bibles were brought to the middle school by an outside group, meaning that they may have not been funded by the state, I think their presence without secular reason constitutes establishment. It seems like no other religious texts are available to students in such quantities, and that the Bibles are not used for any secular courses at the school. The Christian symbols were not placed around the school by the students, but instead by the school itself, which is a government establishment of religion.
I agree with the author and the previous comments that this is clearly violating the Establishment Clause. We have read many cases regarding school-led prayer whether it is at a graduation ceremony, football game, or assembly. Not only is it taking place on school property, which is government funded, but it is also coercive because the people who attend these events are going to be coerced into participating in this Christian prayer. Therefore, I believe that this is violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
I agree with the author, this case shows a pretty blatant issue with the establishment clause. The school's use of prayer is an issue that we have seen shot down numerous times now. On the basis of the prayer being an unconstitutional establishment, and the use of Christian imagery throughout a government entity, this school is infringing upon the first amendment rights of the students. To allow this to happen would be allowing possibility for indoctrination and non-secular studies in this public school system.
I agree with the author that the school is violating the establishment clause by using christian-based prayer in school activities. We've already discussed, several times throughout this semester, the unconstitutionality of prayer in public schools, where it is a plain endorsement of religion. I dont think that there is a secular purpose for the prayer or christian imagery in this case, and it is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.
I agree with the author and the rest of the commenters in that this school is violating the establishment clause. Due to the coercive nature of the practices discussed while in the presence of children in schools makes this unconstitutional.
This is definitely an Establishment issue. There is no secular purpose and when it comes to the reasonable observer (and probably even the unreasonable one as well) it looks like a significant endorsement by the public school of Christianity. Since school is mandatory and there are punishments for excessive absences, it is coercive to have these activities on a daily basis.
Post a Comment