Unraveling the Church-State Debate in Alabama Chief Justice's Embryo Ruling

 Abstract

The concurring opinion of Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker in a recent legal case concerning a custody dispute over frozen embryos has ignited a heated debate over the separation of church and state. Known for his history of intertwining conservative Christian ideology and biblical interpretation with his legal perspectives, Parker sided with the anti-abortion activists that sought to preserve the embryos. In his opinion, Parker referenced Bible verses emphasizing the “sanctity of unborn life.” Critics argue that incorporating religious texts into legal opinions violates the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. They point to Supreme Court rulings prohibiting officials from endorsing a particular religion in executing their duties.

On the other hand, Parker contends that he has the right to express his religious views, raising questions about the balance between personal beliefs and the expectations of impartiality within the judicial system. The controversy surrounding this case underscores ongoing tensions regarding the appropriate intersection of religion and the legal system. The contentious nature of Chief Justice Parker’s decision has brought to the forefront a critical question: does his stance on the frozen embryos case violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? This constitutional clause stipulates that government actions should not result in establishing an official religion. More precisely, the debate revolves around whether Parker’s decision constitutes an unconstitutional act violating the Establishment Clause.

Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting laws that “respect an establishment of religion.” This clause is commonly interpreted to prevent the federal government from establishing an official national religion. However, the prohibition extends beyond the explicit establishment of a religion, as a law may still be deemed to “respect” an establishment in other ways. Drawing from the historical context preceding the adoption of the First Amendment and considering colonists’ experiences with religious establishments, the Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Establishment Clause to preclude various forms of government support that could effectively “establish” religion. The Court has articulated that, for the Founders, laws concerning the “establishment” of a religion encompassed actions such as sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the government in religious activities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concurring opinion of Alabama Chief Justice Tom Parker in the recent legal case concerning frozen embryos raises severe concerns about violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause, designed to prevent the government from showing favoritism towards any religion, extends beyond the explicit establishment of a religion. In this case, Chief Justice Parker’s reliance on Bible verses and his history of blending conservative Christian ideology with legal perspectives suggest a nonsecular preference, potentially in violation of the Constitution. 

The Founders of the Constitution, including James Madison, implemented the Establishment Clause to ensure equal treatment under the law and avoid the establishment of a national religion. Alabama’s apparent preference for Christianity in this decision raises alarm about the potential unequal treatment of non-Christian religious minorities. Drawing parallels with the precedent set in Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Supreme Court ruled against government funding to nonsecular schools, supports the argument that Parker’s decision violates the Establishment Clause. Although the circumstances differ, the strong preference for Christianity in Alabama is evident, echoing the concerns addressed in Lemon v. Kurtzman. 

Chief Justice Parker’s decision not only challenges the principles of the Establishment Clause but also creates a potentially precarious legal environment for religious minorities. The historical context surrounding the creation of the Establishment Clause and the guiding principles established in Lemon v. Kurtzman serve as compelling precedents in questioning the constitutionality of the Alabama Chief Justice’s decision. It is imperative to uphold the Constitution’s foundational values of equal treatment and religious freedom to maintain a just and unbiased legal system.

References

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2024-02-23/bible-quoting-alabama-chief-justice-sparks-church-state-debate-in-embryo-ruling

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264

Faith vs. Fees: The Battle of Religious Broadcasters Against Discriminatory Streaming Rates

In National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress, religious broadcasters are challenging the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board’s decision to set significantly higher streaming rates for religious noncommercial webcasters compared to secular National Public Radio (NPR) broadcasters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld this decision, affirming that religious broadcasters must pay rates over 18 times higher for online streaming above a modest listener threshold. The question at hand remains whether this discrepancy in royalty fees for religious noncommercial webcasters vs. their secular counterparts discriminates against religious speech, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment, and hinders the ability of religious broadcasters to expand their reach and effectively communicate their messages online? The petition filed with the Supreme Court argues that the current rate structure not only unfairly favors secular content but also actively suppresses religious speech, creating an unequal playing field in the marketplace of ideas. This is contrary to the principles of free exercise and establishment enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and undermines the very essence of religious liberty.

The salient issues regarding religion and constitutional law in the case of National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress revolve around the protection of religious freedom, free speech, and government neutrality afforded to religious noncommercial webcasters under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case raises questions about whether the significantly higher streaming rates imposed on religious noncommercial webcasters constitute a form of discrimination against religious speech. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the government from substantially burdening an individual’s exercise of religion unless it demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and uses the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. Religious broadcasters argue that the disparity in rates infringes upon their ability to freely exercise their religion by hindering their ability to reach audiences online. Additionally, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech from government interference or discrimination. The lawsuit argues that the Copyright Royalty Board’s decision to set rates disproportionately higher for religious broadcasters constitutes a form of content-based discrimination, favoring secular NPR broadcasters over religious ones. This raises concerns about the equal treatment of all speakers in the online sphere and the importance of maintaining an open marketplace of ideas. Last but certainly not least, constitutional law requires government actions to be neutral towards religion. The case raises questions about whether the government, through the actions of the Copyright Royalty Board, is engaging in viewpoint discrimination by favoring secular content over religious content in the online streaming domain. If so, such actions may run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another or showing preference for religion over non-religion. In short, the case highlights the entanglement of religious freedom, free speech, and government neutrality in the digital age, exposing a need for careful consideration of constitutional principles when regulating online speech and expression.

As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome of this case may very well have implications beyond the broadcasting sphere. It speaks to broader questions of equality, fairness, and the protection of fundamental rights in the digital age. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear this case and, ultimately, its ruling will help shape the landscape of online speech and religious freedom. The online realm has supported a clash between religious freedom and government regulation for quite some time now. The case of National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee v. Copyright Royalty Board and Librarian of Congress serves as a reminder of the ongoing battle to uphold constitutional principles in online speech and expression. As mentioned earlier, at the heart of this legal battle lies a fundamental question: should religious noncommercial webcasters be subject to disproportionately higher streaming rates compared to their secular counterparts? The answer, in my opinion, should be no.

The imposition of exorbitant fees on religious broadcasters constitutes a direct burden on their free exercise of religion. These broadcasters seek to share their faith by spreading messages and connecting with their communities through online platforms. However, the staggering increase in streaming rates places an undue burden on their ability to fulfill this mission, effectively stifling their religious expression and protection under the free exercise clause. For many religious noncommercial webcasters, the choice is clear: either limit their online reach to avoid astronomical fees or face financial hardship to continue broadcasting their message to a wider audience. This creates an unequal playing field in the marketplace of ideas, where certain voices are unfairly disadvantaged solely based on their religious affiliation. In support of this, it is crucial to reference a precedent case that establishes the principle of equal treatment and protection for religious speech under the First Amendment. One such case that provides strong support is the landmark decision in Widmar v. Vincent (1981). In this case, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a public university’s refusal to grant access to its facilities for religious purposes violated the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses. The case involved the University of Missouri, which denied a student religious group access to university facilities for religious meetings and worship services. The Court ruled in favor of the religious group, holding that the university’s policy violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In its decision, the Court emphasized that religious speech is entitled to the same protection and benefits as nonreligious speech. It rejected the argument that providing access to university facilities for religious purposes would constitute an endorsement of religion, emphasizing that a policy of equal access, which tolerates the speech of religious and other student groups, does not convey a message of state endorsement of religion. By invoking the precedent set in Widmar v. Vincent, noncommercial religious broadcasters can make a compelling argument for equal treatment and protection of their speech under the First Amendment. Just as the Court affirmed the rights of religious groups to access public university facilities on an equal basis with nonreligious groups, it should similarly affirm the rights of religious broadcasters to equal treatment in online streaming rates.

Additionally, the discriminatory rate structure imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By favoring secular content over religious content, the government is engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. The Establishment Clause mandates governmental neutrality toward religion, prohibiting any action that may be perceived as endorsing one religious viewpoint over another. In this case, the government’s actions clearly violate this principle by showing a preference for secular speech, thus undermining the tenets of religious diversity and pluralism. The discriminatory rate structure imposed by the Copyright Royalty Board echoes the viewpoint discrimination condemned in Widmar v. Vincent. By subjecting religious broadcasters to disproportionately higher streaming rates compared to secular broadcasters, the government is effectively favoring secular speech over religious speech, thus violating the principle of neutrality mandated by the First Amendment.

In conclusion, I believe that it is imperative that religious noncommercial webcasters receive equal treatment under the law. Upholding religious freedom in the digital era requires that government actions do not infringe upon this fundamental right. Thus, the Supreme Court must recognize the violation of the Establishment Clause and the burden on free exercise imposed by discriminatory streaming rates, and it should rule in favor of religious liberty and equal treatment for all speakers in the online domain. Any different outcome would go against our constitutional values and would pose a threat to religious expression.

https://adflegal.org/press-release/christian-broadcasters-ask-supreme-court-hear-their-religious-freedom-case

https://adflegal-live-drupal-files-delivery.s3.amazonaws.com/2024-02/NRB-v-Copyright-Royalty-Board-and-Library-of-Congress-2024-02-26-SCOTUS-Cert-Petition.pdf

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/454/263/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21B

Discrimination or Adherence to Beliefs?

   

In April 2020, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) at Pioneer High School sued the San Jose Unified School District, alleging the district violated its free exercise rights. The FCA is a national Christian sports ministry created to allow student athletes to engage in their faith with one another. Any student can join its meetings, but to serve in leadership roles, one must sign a “Statement of Faith” and a “Sexual Purity” statement. Extramarital sex or homosexual acts would necessitate resignation from leadership for a student. The FCA requires those in leadership to hold the same core beliefs as the organization; sexual intimacy is only to occur within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman. The sports ministry had been active within the district for nearly ten years until 2019 when a teacher complained to the principal and a leadership committee at Pioneer High school about the group’s faith requirements. Shortly after, the San Jose Unified School District removed the FCA’s ability to operate as an official student club at multiple schools within the district, arguing that the organization violated the district’s non-discrimination policies. The FCA was still allowed to meet on campus as a “student interest group,” but it could no longer maintain its Associated Student Body (ASB) status, have an ASB bank account, or have access to faculty advisors. The FCA’s student leaders subsequently met with district officials to petition for formal recognition, and later sought help from the courts. They felt the district had removed their recognition because of their specific religious beliefs and speech. On June 1, 2022, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California denied the FCA’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have required the district to grant FCA official ASB recognition again. The FCA appealed this decision and on August 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the previous decision and required the district to reestablish the ASB status of the club. In October of 2022, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a petition for a rehearing of the appeal by a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit. On September 13, 2023, the court reaffirmed the previous decision, arguing that the FCA should be reinstated.

            According to the School District’s non-discrimination policy, the district “prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation or bullying on the basis of age, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, gender expression, ethnic group identification, race, ancestry, national origin, religion…in its educational programs and activities….” The FCA’s practice of only allowing those who affirm its religious beliefs on human sexuality to serve in leadership positions within its club seems to be at odds with the district's non-discrimination policy. The FCA felt as if it had to either risk removal from formal recognition at the school by only electing leaders who shared its religious beliefs, or compromise its beliefs in order to keep its ASB status. The basis of this case pertains to whether the district’s non-discrimination policy, and thus its derecognition of the FCA given its perception of the club’s discrimination based on sexual orientation, violates the FCA’s rights to religious free exercise. Another salient issue present in this case centers around the concept of the “limited public forum,” and the role that government actors can play in regulating expression within the forum. 

            A past case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), relates to this current one. In the prior case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a publically-funded school has the right to require student clubs, pursuing official school recognition, to abide by the non-discrimination policy of its school, as long as the policy is equally applied to all clubs on campus. The court used a limited public forum analysis to argue that a public educational institution can withhold official recognition of a club, if doing so is both viewpoint-neutral and reasonable for the forum. 

            Using this case as precedent, I believe the FCA was not denied its free exercise rights when the San Jose Unified School District removed its ASB status. The district’s ASB program serves as a “limited public forum” where it is able to deny official school recognition of certain organizations for acting in ways opposed to the purposes of the forum, as in this case when the FCA failed to abide by the district’s non-discrimination policy. The district did not derecognize the FCA because of its religious views, but instead to protect against the discrimination of gay, lesbian, and transgender students seeking to be leaders within the club. In fact, the district allowed other religious clubs, such as the “Pioneers for Christ,” a group run by the two Plaintiffs in this case, to obtain ASB approval. Although the religious views held by Pioneers for Christ were virtually indistinguishable from those held by the FCA, the Pioneers for Christ did not require affirmation of specific religious beliefs in order to hold leadership positions. Thus, the district did not view it to discriminate against LGBTQ students, or violate the non-discrimination policy. 

In my opinion, the actions taken by the district did not pose a substantial burden on religion, or deprive the FCA from exercising its religion freely. Despite losing its ASB-recognition, the club could still organize and meet on campus under the title of a “student interest group,” where it could continue to require an affirmation of its religious beliefs on human sexuality by potential group leaders. Additionally, had the FCA chosen to abide by the district’s non-discrimination policy and retract its mandatory human sexuality statements, the policy would only been able to require that all students gain equal access to the opportunity to serve in an FCA leadership position; the FCA would still have been able to elect which members it wanted as leaders. 

Lastly, I believe future rulings in favor of the FCA could generate a slippery slope, leading to further violations of the district’s non-discrimination policy. As argued by Justice Ginsburg in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, barring exclusion based on status but allowing it because of belief could produce a daunting challenge to schools, and could lead to clubs hiding their true intentions for excluding a member. Should higher court rulings allow the FCA to continue applying their religious leadership standards, the protections afforded to students under the district’s non-discrimination policy could be jeopardized further. I believe there is a compelling state interest in protecting students from being denied access to opportunities based on their sexual orientation, and this outweighs the FCA’s interests in having potential leaders affirm a statement of religious beliefs. What do you think?

Sources

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/sinclair-v-san-jose-school-district/

https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/sinclair-v-san-jose-unified-school-district/#

https://publications.csba.org/california-school-news/september-2022/federal-district-court-rules-in-favor-of-district-in-fca-v-san-jose-unified-school-district/

Where Do We Draw the Line Between Inclusion and Religious Rights?

    In the state of Maryland, the Montgomery County Board of Education has denied parents' appeal to be able to reinstate an opt-out policy for LGBTQ curriculum in public schools. Parents are fighting back on this appeal, stating that this decision is a violation of their constitutional right towards freedom of exercise as well as the religious instruction of their children. The books are taught to children from pre-k all the way through eighth grade which are used to teach inclusivity in an attempt to promote an environment where students are free to be themselves as well as learn from an early age the acceptance and inclusion of others. The books in question discuss pride parades, gender transition, pronoun preference, etc. Teachers lead class discussions using words such as: intersex, Drag queen, and non-binary. Parents are stating that the book's taught in schools send messages which directly contradict with their sincerely held religious beliefs regarding gender and marriage. Many parents of different faiths have articulated this to the school board, such as Orthodox Christians and Muslims.

    The school board’s compelling interest states diversity in their community will make it easier for children to form relationships with others and to help children understand the perspectives and experiences of others. The School Board Policy on Nondiscrimination, Equity, and Cultural Proficiency states that they will take “proactive steps to identify and redress implicit biases and structural and institutional barriers that too often have resulted in disproportionate exclusion and underrepresentation (CaseLaw).” Additionally, the school is following Maryland state law, which requires schools to provide a comprehensive health education which includes “concepts and skills related to family life and human sexuality.” Which must represent all students regardless of  “ability, sexual orientation, and gender expression (CaseLaw).”  

    Tamer Mohamed who is a Muslim and practices Islam, has objected to the school policy on the grounds that they have “a sacred duty” to teach their children their faith, “including religiously grounded sexual ethics.” He argues that this goes directly against his and his family's faith. In the Islam faith, it states that the Quran prohibits: “prying into others private lives and discourages public disclosure of sexual behavior (CaseLaw).” 

    While the school board does not allow opt outs for anyone, this could potentially look like a neutral law at face value. The school board is not discriminating against any one type of religion if they do not allow opt-outs for anyone regardless of their religion or faith. A “facially neutral and generally applicable law that has the incidental effect of burdening religious exercise is subject to rational basis review (CaseLaw).” Therefore, this law is subject to strict scrutiny as it affects people’s decision to choose between their religion and the other benefits of sending their children to public schools. The opt-out policy would potentially be the most beneficial as it would provide a neutral stance on the LGBTQ curriculum—students who chose to learn about the inclusivity curriculum can stay, and those whose sincerely held religious beliefs are being affected by this can choose a different class to attend. 

While claiming that opt-outs for no one regardless of religion could potentially decrease the risk of religious violations as it is not discriminating against any one religion, the question of coercion comes into play. Where is the line drawn between that and religious families who fear their children may be coerced or forced to learn from a young age about LGBTQ lifestyles that do not align with their sincerely held religious beliefs? The school board determined that “the plaintiffs are not likely to suffer imminent irreparable harm, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favor denying an injunction to avoid undermining the Schools Boards legitimate interests in the no-opt-out policy (National Review).” While the school board may have an interest, is there a compelling state interest for the state of Maryland to enforce this rule in public schools? 

The Supreme Court has held that children are not “wards of the state” and their parents have the fundamental right to have the ability to make key decisions about the education of their children on such critical matters concerning religious rights (BeckettLaw.)”  This has been determined and set as a precedent in the case Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). Which determines that the overarching goals of fundamental religious rights can override a compelling state interest. In this case, I believe that due to the precedents which have been established in Wisconsin v.Yoder, families should have the right to determine whether or not their children should have the ability to be involved in the LGBTQ curricula that is taught in Maryland Public Schools.

Sources: 

1. https://www.aclu.org/cases/tamer-mahmoud-v-monifa-mcknight

2. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/not-a-fundamental-right-maryland-court-strikes-down-parents-request-to-opt-kids-out-of-lgbt-curriculum/#:~:text=The%20case%2C%20Tamer%20Mahmoud%20v,religious%20instruction%20of%20their%20children.

3. https://www.becketlaw.org/case/mahmoud-v-mcknight/

4. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-mar/114954276.html

Where does Theory Become Religion?

    In the classroom, most of us believe that science and facts should prevail. But who determines what is considered scientific? Does simply having some potentially disputed facts give a theory scientific validity? Or should we discount a theory if the claims are bounded by religious concepts? The West Virginia senate recently decided that it should not. 

    Intelligent design theory, also more informally known as creationism, is “The theory… that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection” (IntelligentDesign). Proponents of this theory claim it is just as scientific as the theory of evolution, due to the fact evolution remains a theory and the scientific method that can prove some aspects of intelligent design theory. They believe that this theory should be taught along with evolution theory, with weight given to no theory more. In the past year, West Virginia State Senator (and teacher) Amy Grady pushed for a bill called Senate Bill (SB) 619. This bill would enact that:

“Teachers in public schools, including public charter schools, that include any one or more of grades kindergarten through 12, may teach intelligent design as a theory of how the universe and/or humanity came to exist” (SB 619)

    However, this bill actually came to pass the West Virginia Senate around a month ago, leading to a large mix of emotions and understandings. Grady and other proponents of the bill believe that teachers are entitled to teach any theory with some validity, and they believe that intelligent design theory deserves this status. But, many against Grady and SB 619 believe that the Supreme Court has already ruled against creationism as a teaching in public schools, and found it to be an establishment of religion. In Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) the majority found that teaching of or even allowing for the potential of creationist theory in classrooms establishes religion since “...Senator Keith’s leading expert on creation science, Edward Boudreaux, testified… that the theory of creation science included belief in the existence of a supernatural creator” (Munoz, 305). The majority also found that in Edwards, the Louisiana law failed the first prong of the Lemon test, because they found that the law did not have a secular purpose. Supporters claimed that the secular purpose would be to protect academic freedom of students, but the Court disagreed. Important to note, this decision relied on the precedent set in Wallace v Jaffree, in that once a law fails the first prong of the Lemon test, the Court need not argue nor review the other two.

    More specifically to SB 619, West Virginia lawmakers hope for the courts to revise or fix the precedent set in the past, as they believe that this is a constitutionally valid law, and they genuinely believe it has a secular purpose, similar to that argued in the dissent of Edwards. While the precedent stands against the West Virginia senate currently, this Supreme Court has shown that they are willing to revise precedents they believe were incorrectly decided. And, in this case there is some validity to their claims, which Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissenting opinion to the Edwards decision back in 1987. The Justice found issues with the Lemon test then, and referenced decisions in which the court chose not to “... presume that a law’s purpose is to advance religion merely because it happens to… benefit religion even substantially” (Munoz, 307). In addition, he believed in his dissent that since there is no Lemon test directly in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, they need not even think about it, or are at least not bound by it. Instead, they should be more focused on the literal written Constitutions. Justice Scalia’s issues with the Lemon test were his main argument against the decision in Edwards, and since the Lemon test has been essentially phased out in the Courts, there is a possibility that this case gets overturned.

    The majority for the Court wrote in Edwards, “... as the president of the Louisiana Science Teachers Association testified ‘any scientific concept that’s based on established fact can be included in our curriculum already’… the Act provides Louisiana school teachers with no new authority ” (Munoz, 304). This being written into the decision for the majority makes me believe that any established facts could then make a concept become an academic theory. Therefore, based on the intelligent design website, it seems as if this is a respected theory, at least in some settings. And, as the founders of the United States appealed to when writing the First Amendment to the Constitution, if a belief is considered true in some settings, the majority should not have the right to infringe upon that.

  

 I believe that Bill 619 is currently unconstitutional, due to the existing precedent of the Edwards decision. However, I find a legitimate argument for the state’s purpose of the law, as Grady stated “We do not want to discourage students from asking questions about theories… The definition for theory is that there is some data that proves something to be true, but it doesn’t have to be proven entirely true…” (WVPublic). SB 619 may face constitutional challenges based on the existing precedent, but there appears to be a legitimate argument to be made for its secular purpose of encouraging critical thinking and academic freedom among students. As compelling as this argument is, I believe that in the end the Court should remain with the precedent set by Edwards. The Court wrote then, “... the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the establishment clause” (Munoz, 306) which I ultimately agree with for SB 619. The primary purpose of SB 619 appears to actually be to advance a theory based in religious doctrine and allow for it to be taught in government funded schools, which ultimately is an establishment of religion.

References

• Bill to allow for teaching of Intelligent Design up for passage in Senate. (2023, February 24). WV MetroNews. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://wvmetronews.com/2023/02/24/bill-to-allow-for-teaching-of-intelligent-design-up-for-passage-in-senate/
• Gordon, V. H., & Smentkowski, B. P. (2024, February 20). Edwards v. Aguillard | Supreme Court Ruling on Creationism in Schools. Britannica. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Edwards-v-Aguilard
• SB 619 Text. (2023, February 14). West Virginia Legislature. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb619%20intr.htm&yr=2023&sesstype=RS&i=619
• Senate Passes Intelligent Design Bill For Public Classrooms - West Virginia Public Broadcasting. (2024, January 23). West Virginia Public Broadcasting. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://wvpublic.org/senate-passes-intelligent-design-bill-for-public-classrooms/
• Weaver, H. L. (2023, March 2). West Virginia Lawmakers are Pushing Public Schools to Teach Creationism | ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://www.aclu.org/news/religious-liberty/west-virginia-lawmakers-are-pushing-public-schools-to-teach-creationism
• What Is Intelligent Design? (n.d.). Intelligent Design. Retrieved February 23, 2024, from https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

Has Science Become Irrelevant?

 Dr. Johnson Varkey was a biology professor who taught as St. Phillips College for more than 20 years.  St. Phillips College is a small community college located in San Antonio, Texas.  Dr. Varkey taught Human Anatomy and Physiology since 2004 using the same lesson plans and the school-approved textbook with never any complaints from any students or staff about his teaching.  Around November 2022, four students walked out of class due to his claim that human sexuality is result of X and Y chromosomes.   In January 2023, Dr. Varkey received a Notice of Discipline and Termination of Employment and Contract Letter in regard to "his "religious preaching, discrimatory comments about homosexuals and transgender individuals, anti-abortion rhetoric, and misogynistic banter" and that his teaching "pushed beyond the bounds of academic freedom with [his] personal opinions that were offensive to many individuals in the classroom" (Dr. Johnson Varkey)".  Consequently, he was fired from these accusations.

    Another important fact about this case is the fact that Dr. Varkey is an associate pastor in one of the local churches in the area.  He is a devout Evangelical Christian, but he made it very clear that he never projects his religion or his beliefs at any time during his time teaching.  The Christian ideology believes that the human sexuality is determined by biology.  In other words, the Bible believes that humans are meant to be heterosexual.  First Liberty stated, "It is preposterous that, after teaching for more than 20 years, St. Philip's College would fire Dr. Varkey for teaching basic, widely accepted concepts of biology from the textbook assigned to him (Dr. Johnson Varkey)".  This was not a concern for 20 years until 4 students decided to protest the teachings of Dr. Varkey even with his great professor reviews and no disciplinary actions on his record.  This has become a sore spot for society today because now that biology and human reproductive facts are being rejected when it is not the popular opinion.  Specifically, they are saying that science is being disregarded and deemed unimportant.  This is important to the case because the college is making it clear to Dr. Varkey and others that the free exercise of religion outside of the classroom context is not allowed.  

    The constitutional issue at question deal with if it unconstitutional to teach basic scientific concepts that are not accepted by everyone.  In my opinion, I believe that he was wrongfully fired.  This college fired Dr. Varkey because of his faith and his involvement as a pastor which is against the Constitution.  Since Dr. Varkey did not discuss his religious beliefs or press them onto his students, he was not violating the separation of Church and State.  He was teaching the students very basic human anatomy specifically the genitals on both the female and male, and he was teaching the prenatal development that occurs during a pregnancy.  These are scientific facts that are agreed upon in the scientific world.  Dr. Varkey was not breaking any law and was unlawfully fired.  First Liberty has filed a charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for Dr. Varkey for the discrimination of his religion in the workplace.  "The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer from treating you differently, or less favorably, because you or a friend, parent, or someone else you associate with holds a particular religious belief (or non-belief) (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)".

    Therefore, this case should be looked at more closely.  This becomes a fine line of what is actual fact and what is religious belief.  It is relevant today because this is becoming very common in many situations.  Now, there are many cases where the lessons are being changed to accommodate everyone some without the parental consent.  For example, Jennifer Vitsaxaki had no idea about many things that were occurring during school that influenced her daughter.  Especially when discussing Church and State, it is not written in the Constitution and has been analyzed as a metaphor.  In both of these cases, I think there has been discrimination against any resemblance of faith and made a consequence.  Therefore, it is making it hard to even have a religion if you are either a parent or a teacher.  This is important because this influences individuals' rights of free exercise of religion.  In Dr. Varkey's case, he was fired due to his religious beliefs which is deemed unconstitutional, yet the college still fired him.  As we discussed in class, this can become a slippery slope of what is yet to come if this is the trend that we see in the future.     

References 

Dr. Johnson Varkey - Cases - First Liberty

Religious Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)

Mead v. Rockford Public School District | ADFMedia.org     

           

Prayer in Public Spaces: Balancing Rights and Neutrality

The First Amendment contains the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause which are put in place to work together to protect individual rights regarding religion. However, at times these two clauses cause conflict in certain cases which usually involves the practice of religion in public spaces. The Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association case is an example of how the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment Clause can lead to disagreements. 

        The Cambridge Christian School has a tradition of saying a prayer over the loudspeaker before each of the football games. The prayer is usually recited by a student, parent or faculty member. The school has not had any issues with their prayer before their games until Friday, December 4, 2015. The Cambridge Christian School was playing the University Christian school in the state championship game at the Citrus Bowl in Orlando, Florida. It was a tradition for both Christian schools to recite a prayer before playing. So the Cambridge Christian School asked if they could use the loudspeaker before the game to pray. However, the ​​Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) denied their request. The reason for FHSAA’s denial was their concern that allowing the Christian Schools to recite a prayer on government property could be seen as an endorsement of religion. Another important aspect to note is that the FHSAA did not allow anyone to use the loudspeaker. If this was considered an endorsement of religion it would be seen as an establishment of religion which is forbidden through the First Amendment. The football players, coaches, and fans expressed that they were devastated and very disappointed that their request was denied. The CCS sued the FHSAA as they believed their freedom of religion and speech was violated. 

Prior to suing FHSAA, there was a letter from CCS to FHSAA on January 26, 2016 claiming that their rights were violated. The board meeting occurred on September 26, 2016 and many concerned parents and teachers attended. They requested for the FHSAA to adopt a policy that would allow for religious freedom for students in Florida. However, FHSAA denied their proposition which then led to the CSS filing a lawsuit against FHSAA. In February 2017 a Tampa district magistrate issued a “report and recommendation” which claimed that at the Citrus Bowl two Christian schools can not pray over the loudspeaker. CCS then appealed this ruling as they still felt this was unconstitutional. In November 2019 the Court of Appeals ruled that CCS’s argument that its free speech and free exercise rights were violated and they should proceed. However in 2022, the US district court ruled that the Christian schools can not recite a prayer over the loudspeaker. The CCS appealed requesting for the lower court's decision to be reversed. 

This court case revolves on the interpretations and application of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. CCS believed that it was a violation of their free exercise of religion and speech. They believed that the First Amendment was being applied unjustly and one of the attorneys believes this is an ongoing issue. He states “For far too long the Establishment Clause has been used by government agencies and actors to suppress and punish religious liberty whenever it came into the public square.” They also emphasized that the First Amendment should protect prayer from censorship. Another argument they made was that it is protected for “religious schools to be able to be religious schools” in public spaces. On the opposing side, the FHSAA argued that if they were to allow the prayer to be said over the loudspeaker it would have been a violation of the Establishment Clause because this would not be a separation between religion and government. They also argued that this can be seen as a form of coercion which is forbidden by the First Amendment especially when it comes to young children. They also argued that they did not discriminate against religious messages. Another point they make is that religious groups are not allowed to receive privileges that others can not have. If they were to allow the prayer they would be favoring religion over non religion. 

        I believe that both sides in this case make very compelling arguments but in my opinion the FHSAA should not allow the prayer to be recited over the loudspeaker. I also do not believe that the FHSAA denied Cambridges Free Exercise clause. The FHSAA was not claiming that the students, coaches and parents could not pray before the game. They were only not allowing them to pray over the loudspeaker. I do not think that this stopped them from practicing their religion. I view that this is a form of coercion even though the prayer is being cited by a student. They are using government sponsored equipment and on government funded grounds. I also agree with the FHSAA's statement that they can not favor religion over non religion. As previously stated nobody is allowed to use the loudspeaker even if it is for a non religious purpose. So I do not believe that religious groups should receive this special treatment as this is not neutral. I believe it is also important to look at this case through the precedent set in the Supreme Court Case Lemon V. Kurtzman (1971). In this case the Lemon test was created which was a way to determine if the government violated the Establishment Clause. The test requires that a law or government action must have a secular purpose, must not advance or inhibit religion, and must not create excessive entanglement between government and religion. I believe that if the FHSAA were to allow the prayer according to the Lemon test it would be a clear violation of the establishment clause. 

Sources:

https://firstliberty.org/cases/cambridge/#simple1

https://www.au.org/how-we-protect-religious-freedom/legal-cases/cases/cambridge-christian-school-v-florida-high-school-athletic-association/

https://republicsentinel.com/articles/christian-school-battles-in-court-after-florida-athletic-authority-bans-prayer-before-football-game

"Protecting Religious Freedom: The Battle for Autonomy in Faith-Based Institutions"

Since 1857, St. Joseph Catholic Church has been a part of the St. Johns, Michigan community, providing spiritual guidance and support to local Catholics. In 1924, the church expanded its services by establishing St. Joseph Catholic School, offering children in the area a Catholic education grounded in Church teachings. Essential to St. Joseph's mission is the employment of staff who align with and promote Catholic doctrine. As with many Catholic schools St. Joseph requires all staff members to be practicing Catholics and to uphold Catholic beliefs. Additionally, families who enroll their children at St. Joseph are expected to embrace and uphold the school's Catholic values and mission. In July 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted a state civil rights statute to include sexual orientation in its definition of sex, a decision that was later incorporated into state law by the Michigan legislature in March 2023. This change expanded civil rights protections to expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, both the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and members of the Michigan legislature opted not to include any religious accommodations, despite such accommodations being present in federal law and the laws of many other states. As a result, St. Joseph faces challenges in aligning its operations with the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding marriage and sexuality, which are deeply rooted in tradition. This presents obstacles to the school's ability to hire staff who can effectively transmit the Catholic faith to students and to operate in accordance with Catholic teachings. 

The statute that the Michigan Supreme Court reinterpreted is called the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA). The church argues that the ELCRA violates several different rights that they believe they have. They believe it may limit their participation in public programs they currently benefit from, such as staff support initiatives. It could impede their ability to hire employees who align with Catholic teachings. It may restrict their freedom to uphold and express the church's beliefs, including those regarding marriage and gender. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards the autonomy of religious organizations, including churches and their schools, allowing them to operate according to their religious beliefs without government intervention. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld this principle, as demonstrated in cases like Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, where the Court affirmed the right of religious institutions to make internal management decisions independently. Michigan's revised definition of discrimination poses a potential challenge to St. Joseph's ability to establish and preserve a parish and school environment consistent with its Catholic faith. 

The Vice President and senior counsel for the Becket Law Firm, Lori Windham, who is representing St. Joseph's parish said, "They're not asking to invalidate the entire law, they're just asking to be able to continue with their own religious beliefs and practices." This claim is under the Equal Protection Clause that the government's refusal to provide religious accommodations for the parish constitutes unequal treatment and discriminates against religious organizations compared to secular entities. 

The question involving this case is does Michigan’s redefinition of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) threaten St. Joseph’s right to create and maintain a parish and school environment that reflects its Catholic faith?

After carefully considering the facts in this case I believe ELCRA does threaten the Catholic schools right to maintain a school environment that reflects its Catholic faith. This act infringes upon the free exercise clause that it’s the parish's constitutional right to freely exercise its religious beliefs and operate its institutions accordingly. The law seems neutral at face value but when it is used in practice it entangles itself in religious matters by enforcing laws that interfere with the internal affairs and religious mission of the Catholic parish. I also would like to point out the case that I mentioned earlier. The recent case of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru this was a similar case where the court ruled that religious institutions have the right to make their own internal decisions without interference. Based on these three reasons I agree with the prosecutors. 

Sources: 

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/st-josephs/ 

https://clearinghouse.net/case/43913/ 

https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2022/12/06/st-johns-church-files-federal-civil-rights-complaint-against-nessel-mdcr/69705400007/

What Questions Fly? Religious Interrogation in Airports

 Airports are uncomfortable, especially when you are subject to additional searches and questioning. They are even more uncomfortable when you have to fear that additional search every time you travel. In Kariye v. Mayorkas, plaintiffs Imam Kariye, Mohamad Mouslli, and Hameem Shah were repeatedly subject to questions about their religious beliefs and practices at US ports of entry by US customs. They were asked, “What mosque do you attend?” “how often do you pray?” and “Are you Sunni or Shi’a?”

The plaintiffs allege that they were unfairly subject to this secondary questioning about their religion because they were perceived to be Muslim, while people perceived to be of other faiths are not subject to the same religious questioning. In this case, the plaintiffs argue they are prevented from exercising their religion because the questioning places a special disability on people who are perceived to be Arab or Muslim.

Furthermore, they argue that religious questioning is invasive and distressing, and places pressure on individuals to modify their religious expression and practice while traveling. The religious questions took place in the “coercive” environment of secondary questioning, in which subjects are separated from the public and are not allowed to leave without the officer's consent. One plaintiff, Kariye no longer carries a Quaran with him while traveling because he fears the additional religious questioning from security.

Does questioning about religious belief, practice, and association at US ports of entry violate travelers’ right to free exercise and constitute an establishment of religion? This case concerns questions of neutrality between religions and between religion and nonreligion. It also brings up the issue of what constitutes a compelling state interest and a substantial burden.

If I were a justice, I would rule in favor of the plaintiffs, arguing that the practice has no compelling state interest other than to foster hostility toward those of the Muslim faith. In Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black defines what constitutes the establishment of religion. He writes “Neither the state or federal government . . . can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.  No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. . .” Under this definition, the practice of questioning about religious faith violates the Establishment Clause. While it may seem innocent to include questions about religious belief in a questionnaire administered to everyone,  people who are perceived to be Muslim are questioned at a disproportionate rate, while others are not subject to the same religious scrutiny. This is an unequal treatment based on religious status. Further, the practice removes these individuals from the line to a separate location and holds them there based on whether or not they profess religious belief and attend mosque. The practice is hostile rather than just inconvenient. If the state were neutral between religions, people would be asked religious questions no matter their faith, and if the state were neutral between religion and non-religion, the questions would not be asked at all.

Additionally, the practice of questioning people at airports violates the Free Exercise Clause by placing a substantial burden on these individuals. While the state has an interest in identifying and preventing customs-related crime, belief does not indicate illegal activity and the questioning is unnecessarily invasive to achieve that state interest. The questioning is an undue burden because it places distress on the travelers to the extent that it prevents them from freely expressing and practicing their religion.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/muslim-americans-sue-border-and-immigration-officials-over-illegal-religious

 file:///Users/sarahdowney/Downloads/Religious_Liberty_and_the_American_Supreme_Court_T..._----_(Chapter_10._Everson_v._Board_of_Education_of_Ewing_Township_330_U.S._1...).pdf

Students forced to attend school backed preachings

In 2022, a school district in West Virginia adopted a policy that effectively required yearly training on religious freedom as part of a lawsuit settlement, which was in response to many students being forced to attend an evangelical preacher's revival assembly during the school day. All of this happened in Cabell County, West Virginia, whose board of education claimed that it was “not the province of a public school to either inhibit, or advance, religious beliefs or practices.” There were in fact four separate families in this town of Huntington, West Virginia that sued the district in 2022, and accused the school system of having a history of disregarding the religious freedom of its students and inculcating Christian religious practices among their students. In this particular lawsuit, there were two Huntington High School teachers who had escorted their entire homeroom classes to a large assembly hosted by evangelical preacher named Nik Walker, who had consistently been leading revivals in the area.

There were a lot of students who reported this, and even a Jewish student who once requested permission to leave the preaching but was denied, and was instead directed to shut his eyes and lift his arms in prayer with his fellow students. This is outlined in the lawsuit so presumably it did indeed happen, as sworn in affidavits. There were even some students who were urged to “dedicate their lives to Jesus for purpose and salvation,” with a warning that any non adherents would face eternal torment. The lawsuit even describes scenarios where not only students, but also their families were prompted to participate in evening services at a nearby church, where baptism was offered. This became such a blatant violation of the students’ religious freedom that they ended up having a walkout at the high school, with hundreds of students protesting and chanting “My faith, my choice,” as well as “Separate the church and state.” The issue that all the students were concerned with, in relation to the constitutional law aspect, is that the schools behavior constituted an “establishment of religion” which is pretty clearly unconstitutional according to the establishment clause of the first amendment.

   The school board lawyer in this case was a man named Brian Morrison, and he claimed that the event was promoted in school announcements as a sort of voluntary gathering organized by the FCA which is the fellowship of christian athletes. Morrison also noted that the two teachers who brought their entire homeroom were either confused or just misunderstood. And although the school board already technically had their own policy on religious freedom, Morrison pointed out that it now includes more clear and emphatic language that makes it clear to teachers that it's not their place to impede students' religious freedom. The upshot here is clearly to make it seem impossible to interpret the school board's policy as anything but completely in accordance with the principle of separation of church and state. The new policy mandates the district superintendent and principals to make good-faith efforts to monitor school sponsored activities for the sake of compliance with the new rule. Principals also have to report potential violations of the updated policy to the superintendent within at least a week, by which point the superintendent may opt to have the issue further investigated. A local news outlet 13 News, asked a parent named Herman Mays, whose child was forced to attend the revivals, said he was happy with the settlement, and that he felt it led to meaningful policy changes, enforcement, as well as sufficient training to prevent a recurrence of the events that occurred in the school district.

I agree with the outcome of this legal matter and I think the school's response was very professional and took into account the complaints of both the students and the parents. The more egregious part to me is the teachers allowing preachers to taunt students with the image of hell, threatening that their fates lie in an eternity of conscious torment in fire if not to submit to their authority. Obviously, this case is a good example of the American legal system achieving a settlement that lies in accordance with the religious principles upon which this country was founded from the constitution to the Treaty of Tripoli. However, I think it's worthy of note that these preachers and the teachers that supported their actions, were not only acting against secular democratic principles, but religious ones too. In this country, you reserve the right to believe whatever you want, and a key theme of this class is answering the question “do people have the right to be wrong.” But the reason these preachers were wrong in my view is because they deprived these students by the hundreds, of the chance to take their own leap of faith. Peter denied Jesus three times on the eve of his crucifixion, and Jesus let him do it. Jesus himself had the choice when he was in the desert for forty days. He could have chosen otherwise. He decided, and we decided, whether or not to give our lives to the father though the son, or to live freely as we wish. And they robbed these students of that.

Sources: https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/cabell-county-wv/west-virginia-school-system-mandates-religious-training-following-revival-assembly-lawsuit/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pittsburgh/news/west-virginia-school-system-mandates-religious-training-following-revival-assembly-lawsuit/