Is official prayer in public schools unconstitutional?
Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/no-more-forced-prayers-in-school/
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-sues-stop-official-prayers-promotion-religion-tennessee-school-district
On November 18, 2019, the American Civil Liberties
Union of Tennessee and ACLU National filed a lawsuit against the Smith
County Public School System on the grounds that their practice of
regularly incorporating prayer into various school events
was a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 3 adults who identified as atheists and
whose children did so as well: Kelly Butler, and Sharona and Jason Carr.
Among the school’s practices were: school-wide dictated prayer read
at assemblies where attendance and participation were mandatory,
the distribution of Bibles to students in classrooms, Bible verses
read in class, prayers broadcast during sports games and rallies,
coaches leading student athletes in prayer, and a large, painted
cross displayed prominently on the wall of a school gymnasium.
This case (Butler v. Smith County) was brought to a federal
district court where it was decided in favor of the ACLU and
their plaintiffs and against the Smith County Public School System on
the grounds that they violated the Establishment Clause.
In the view of the ACLU of Tennessee and the ACLU National,
public, taxpayer funds were going to a public institution where
children were being indoctrinated into a particular religion.
This is a public school district, and therefore they must act religiously
neutral in order to accommodate for and represent their constituents.
If maybe there was a large Star of David displayed in a gym, or a Star
and Crescent, etc, there would be a more specific argument for the school
practicing neutrality (or verses from the Quran in addition to the Bible, the
Bhagavad Gita, etc), although Courts have often found that not only can a school
not favor one particular religion, they cannot sponsor any religion at all.
One of the plaintiffs, Leyna Carr (one of the children attending the school),
cited the school’s practices as consistently awkward and uncomfortable and
she often felt intense peer pressure to conform to a religion which she did not
believe in. In addition to establishment concerns, the article on the ACLU website
focuses on discrimination against the plaintiffs, citing an alienation that
non-Christian students felt at the school. Ms. Carr said that “I respect other
people’s religion, and I would like it if everyone else respected mine.”
Therefore, not only are tax dollars being used to promote a particular religion,
but those attending the school who are not a part of that religion are being
discriminated against and pressured to convert.
I found the other response to this issue by another student really interesting
because it focused on the use of the words “In God We Trust” as the motto of
the United States as well as the pledge of allegiance featuring words referencing
a supreme being. I respect this angle and absolutely see where it comes from, but
I am personally more concerned with the mandatory prayer and reading of Bible
verses in class.
In my opinion, this is a classic one-two Establishment Clause violation
punch. Certainly more than the 2 pence Madison feared is going to this school,
it’s a public school paid for by taxpayers who are not religiously and culturally
homogeneous. The right to proselytize is absolutely afforded to individuals
in this country, but direct or indirect funding of that proselytizing is
unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause because it gives a particular
religion the financial means to evangelize, giving that religion a
government-sanctioned advantage over others. Additionally, this
state sponsorship of religion, in practice, oppressed religious minorities.
Part of the reason, in my opinion, for the existence of the Free Exercise
Clause is to counteract any feared establishment, and so therefore, when
there is a case of the Establishment Clause being violated, free exercise
has been violated as well. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees an individual
the right to practice their religion in any way they see fit; it does not
guarantee the right to impose that religion on others and evangelize in a
public sphere using public funds. One could argue that taxpayers pay for
all sorts of things they don't believe in, but there are specific provisions in
our constitution enacted in order to prevent that dilemma in regards to
publicly funded religion. Asking one to convert is different than a public
school system practically indoctrinating children from an early age. A child’s
greatest influences on them are often their parents, but are also frequently
their teachers and authority figures in school. If from kindergarten to senior
year of high school you are being compelled to pray, read Bible verses, and
treat Christianity as a norm, there is significant cause for concern
of indoctrination, or at the very least, a conflict with the religious values of their
homes. I disagree with Justice Scalia’s position that we are not guaranteed the right to
not be peer pressured. The right to not be indoctrinated/peer pressured is half of the
purpose of the Establishment Clause. A state sponsored religion is bad because it is
using public funds to pressure or compel individuals of other faiths to convert,
conform, or face consequences (be they social, economic, legal, or physical). If
preventing overwhelming peer pressure isn't a part of the Establishment Clause,
then why else is a state sponsored religion bad? Does there need to be explicitly
violent conversion tactics before it’s unconstitutional? I fear that if we wait for
a public school teacher to explicitly say “convert to Christianity or be punished”
we will wait forever and allow indirect but still potent religious indoctrination
and intense pressure to convert, all the while Madison rolls in his grave,
aghast at our lack of foresight and respect for this lesson from history:
religious oppression starts by indirectly enforcing cultural and religious
hegemony. This is a clear and dangerous establishment of religion.
I agree that the religious requirements built into this public school are certainly grounds for establishment of religion. Previous cases that we have read in class have set the precedent that even voluntary non-denominational prayer in classrooms are unconstitutional and that the posting of the ten commandments in classrooms as a historical and secularly referenced document constitutes an establishment. The elements of this case seem to be much more egregious acts of religion in public schools and therefore also come in conflict with the establishment clause.
ReplyDeleteI really like the point you make regarding Scalia’s comment that you do not have the right to not be peer-pressured when the establishment cause was established in order to prevent peer-pressure by the government on society. I had not thought of it in that light before. I believe we talked about this case last week as well and I think it is clear that most of the actions the school is mandating participation in are religious activities that are in fact unconstitutional as was made evident in Engel v. Vitale, WV State Board of Education v. Barnette, McCollum v Board of Education, and more (sorry I don't know how to italicize cases on blogger).
ReplyDeleteThe authors criticizes the point made by Justice Scalia that we do not have the right not to be peer pressured, and is concerned about the implications on this allowing evangelism to happen in public schools. While this is certainly a concern, it is impossible to raise this concern, and steamroll Scalia's point without bringing up the other side of that issue. If we were to implement laws and regulations preventing peer pressuring from happening, specifically in religious contexts, what would this look like? Certainly one could argue this would hold dangerous implications for Americans' well establish freedom to proselytize publicly. Where would the line of be drawn, what would be considered an unconstitutional degree of peer pressuring and where would such a degree be acceptable. While I do not agree with the schools practice, I do disagree with the authors discounting and frank misinterpretation of Justice Scalia's argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinions on this case and I also found Justice Scalia’s stance on this case one that I disagreed with. Personally, I think the most important issue, in this case, is that this school is a public institution. In order to keep this school running, this school receives federal funding provided through taxpayer dollars. I have mentioned this in a previous discussion of this case and I feel as though that it is important to mention Engel v. Vitale again. In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation isn’t required and the prayer isn’t tied to a particular religion. They ruled that the prayer would result in an establishment of religion and I think that this case can be used as a precedent for this particular case. It is obvious that the school’s actions of displaying religious symbols and making the students pray on public school property is a violation of the constitution.
ReplyDelete