On September 14th, 2020, a district court judge in Tennessee issued a permanent injunction against the Smith County Board of Education to stop violations of the Establishment Clause from taking place in their schools. In November 2019, numerous plaintiffs had filed a complaint that their children were being proselytized in public school. The school board admitted that they were aware of various religious practices taking place including, but not limited to: prayer being given over the intercom, distribution of Bibles to fifth-graders, and the posting of signs on which Bible verses and religious phrases were written. While these are rather blatant endorsements of a particular religion, and thus violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, most interesting is the blurry case; a mural was painted by students that included a Latin cross and the text "In God We Trust." The cross needs to be removed, as it is a reference to Christianity, a particular religion. The district court in this case, however, seems to have found the phrase next to the cross as equally problematic. But go ahead and take any bill out of your wallet and take a close look at the back. "In God We Trust." Surely if such a phrase was approved to be on our currency, the phrase must not violate the Establishment Clause. Right?
That is less clear. In 2000, Michael Newdow, a California resident, sued the local school district on his daughter's behalf for requiring the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance which includes the line "one nation under God." His argument was that the inclusion of God in government-funded buildings or objects constituted an establishment of religion—applying to both currency and schools. What followed was a decade-long legal battle where first the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2002 that "in God we trust" and "under God" indeed violate the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ordered a writ of certiorari to review the case in 2004 and had it overturned not on the basis of the Establishment Clause but rather on procedural grounds. As it turned out, Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and thus was ineligible to file a suit on her behalf. It is speculated that the Supreme Court also wanted to avoid ruling directly on the constitutionality of this issue for political reasons. The September 11th attacks had taken place only three years prior and Christianity and patriotism were in full-swing. In 2005, Newdow filed a new suit which came to the same conclusion as that of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but ultimately that too was overruled by the very same court in what is the newest development: Newdow v. Carey in 2010. As it stands, the current judicial precedent is that "In God We Trust" and "under God" do not violate the Establishment Clause because they do not respect the establishment of a particular religion.
In Butler v. Smith County, the injunction ordered that “[s]chool officials shall not authorize students to post religious iconography or religious messages in classrooms, hallways, or other school facilities… [and] shall remove any such existing displays.” Whether the school board will take this to mean that the "In God We Trust" inscribed on the mural must be removed has yet to be seen. It could serve as the basis for another legal battle in the future.
In my opinion, this is a contentious issue with valid arguments on both sides. While neither the national motto nor the Pledge of Allegiance make reference to a specific religion, it does respect that there is a God and heavily implies that he is the only God. It would be dishonest to ignore the country's Christian background when dealing with these matters, and an originalist interpretation would hold that the Abrahamic God was more than likely the basis for these phrases. In that regard, those against these phrases' inclusion have expressed valid concerns.
On the other hand, a textualist reading of these phrases would fall in line with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Newdow v. Carey; the phrases are acceptable on the grounds that they do not establish a particular religion. I am more inclined toward textualism as it is far easier to look at a law and determine what it says rather than what its writers intended. We can look at "In God We Trust" and say that no specific god is invoked, but it would be hard to find documentation proving particular religious intent behind the phrase's creation. Thus, while I agree with the general outcome of Butler v. Smith County, I would be opposed to the removal of the "In God We Trust" phrase on the mural at their school.
4 comments:
I am in agreement with the Court’s decision, however, I agree that the text “In God We Trust” on the school's mural should be removed as well. My primary reasoning for this agreement is the long-term implications of these religious messages and displays on the well-being of young children. Because these messages are in the school-owned halls, classrooms and facilities which all students learn in each and every day, these young, impressionable students are essentially forced to read and consider them. This fosters an environment of peer pressure and coercion, as these students are not mature enough to form their own opinions and instead, assimilate into the norm. Public school is meant to be a space where all are welcomed and given access to quality education, regardless of their religious beliefs, yet the implementation of these religiously-packed phrases in many locations counteract the purpose of a secular education.
I also agree with the Court's decision. The only thing I would have to disagree with, however, is the notion that kids are "being forced to consider religion" in Sophia's response. I don't think that anyone is being forced to do anything, especially because they are not being marketed or exposed to the actual practices of a specific religion. I actually agree to an extent with the current judicial precedent that was stating that the saying "In God We Trust" did not violate the Establishment Clause. Mainly because, similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, the phrase is actually an idea that our country was based on, and one that only implies there is a God. These things are not directly telling students, or anyone for that matter, to participate in, or practice religion. The other thing that I do disagree with, however, is that this statement is written within the walls of a public schools, in which the funds are paid by taxpayers. Despite this, I ultimately agree with the author that by taking into account textualism, these phrases do not constitute an establishment of religion.
I agree with the decision of the court. In the history of Supreme Court precedent surrounding religion and schools, the court has always held that the burden on the state to prove justification for religious practices has to be higher because children are much more impressionable. While I don't think the phrase "In God We Trust" in and of itself is a violation of the establishment clause, I do understand how that phrase in conjunction with the crucifix and all of the other religious symbols and practices could lead a child to believe that school is tied with religion (Christianity) and to be a good student, they have to be a good Christian. I think its important to look at everything in context and it seems like the context of this school is overwhelmingly religious.
I also agree with the decision of the court. The phrase "under God" and "in God we trust" are very controversial, but they do not establish a particular religion for the country. The fact that this takes place at an elementary school is important to note. As Jerra stated, looking at this in context along with the distribution of bibles, prayers over the intercom, and the display of a crucifix definitely brings more religious meaning to the phrase "in God we trust". Despite this, I believe it is okay for the phrase to stay, but the other religious ties of the public school need to be cut.
Post a Comment