In Brevard County, FL., the Board of County Commissioners’has a policy that prohibits nontheists from delivering invocations at boardmeetings. On April 27th, advocates urged the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to rule this practice as a violation of both the Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, as the District
Court already had. The federal lawsuit was initially filed in 2015 on the
behalf of those who objected to the policy of not allowing atheists, Humanists
or other nontheists to deliver secular invocations during public meetings but
allowing those with monotheistic beliefs to solemnize. The US District Court
had agreed that this policy and practice were unconstitutional and stated,
“[T]he great promise of the Establishment Clause is that religion will not
operate as an instrument of division in our nation. Regrettably, religion has
become such an instrument in Brevard County.” The plaintiffs, five nontheist
individuals and three nontheist organizations, reported feeling coerced into participating
in the theistic prayers and felt excluded from the meetings, suffering
emotional damages. The Commissioners posted on social media exhibiting severe
hostility toward religion, posting messages such as, “It’s either ‘One Nation
Under God’ or bite my ass and just leave!” and “…Atheist[s] do not count.” The brief from the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida in 2017 also stated, “[T]he policy violates the Establishment Clause of
the First Amendment. The Supreme Court and this Court have both held that the
Establishment Clause prohibits governmental bodies from discriminating based on
religion in deciding who may give opening invocations. The County’s policy does
exactly that.”
This case presents the issues of whether a governmental body
can exclude citizens from the opportunity to offer invocations at meetings
because they do not believe in God, and whether government officials can direct
citizens to rise for invocations at legislative meetings. I think this is a
clear case of establishment as well as a violation of the free exercise of
religion. People are being coerced in these meetings to rise for prayers,
partake in prayers and to subscribe to a theistic faith. There is open
hostility toward other religious viewpoints, to the extent where people are
being harassed on social media for their beliefs and are being barred from
giving invocations at the meetings if they are advertising any beliefs that
contradict those of the majority. This is encouraging the excessive
entanglement of government and religion, as the members of the County Board are
deciding which religions are legitimate enough to be involved in the invocations.
The permitted invocations at the meetings are also paid for using tax dollars,
according to the appellee’s brief, and using tax dollars in a religiously
discriminatory way has already been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. Additionally, this was already ruled by the District Court as
unconstitutional and the exclusionary practice was ordered to stop. Based on
this and the clear violations of the First Amendment, I would assume the Court
of Appeals would also rule this practice as being an unconstitutional
establishment of religion as well as a violation of the free exercise clause. Even
if one were to invoke the ruling of Marsh
v. Chambers (1983) in which public prayer was allowed before legislative
sessions by a chaplain, this case differs in that certain religions are
blatantly being excluded and a policy has been created that prohibits other
viewpoints from speaking. In Marsh v.
Chambers representatives from other religions were allowed to speak, and
although some were still uncomfortable and felt coerced by the mere presence of
religious speech in a government setting, as Ernie Chambers reported, it was to
a much different extent than in this case. In Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014), prayer was permitted before legislative
meetings, but it was determined there was no proof of discrimination of
minority religions occurring or coercion. This is clearly not the case in
Brevard County. Not ruling this as a violation of the Establishment and Free
Exercise clauses would set an extremely dangerous precedent of preferencing monotheistic
religions, the government sponsorship of specific religions, and the blatant
allowance for exclusion of religions that are not deemed as being worthy of
receiving the same benefits and protections as majoritarian religions.
Sunday, April 29, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree that not allowing atheists to participate shows a clear discrimination toward their religion. As seen in United States V. Seeger, a profession of faith is seen as sincere faith and the government can not determine the extent in which this 'faith' is actually a religion or not. Therefore, to not allow these people to give invocations would to be to discriminate based on their faith, and thus is unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause.
I think that this is crossing the line of neutrality and is unconstitutional on the basis of viewpoint discrimination. These people should be allowed to give an opening statement just like someone who is within a religion. If the government were to prohibit someone based on religion I believe that this would be an easily decided case. I believe that the government should adopt a completely neutral approach, either allow everyone to participate or allow no one to participate.
This case is interesting because the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause are being utilized for the equal treatment of secular beliefs instead of religious beliefs like they usually do. To exclude the atheists or nonbelievers from giving the invocation, the government would not be facially neutral between religion and non religion. Just as minority and majority religious beliefs must be protected, the right to refrain from believing must be protected as well.
This is a dangerous precedent as it allows the civil magistrate to determine what is and is not a religion, in this case, non-theists being second -class to monotheists who's beliefs are elevated over others. This First Amendment is made to protect these non-theists from the majority theist, just as any other religion.
Earlier this week, I sent this and I also sent it this morning...
Please don't miss it as this maybe the last time I send it...
You must see this picture (if you haven't yet)....
It provides photographic PROOF that God exists.
A friend forwarded me this video ......and I'm speechless.
Skeptical? I was, too.
But you can see the proof in exactly 2 minutes…
and I promise, you’ll never be the same.
Ready to see… and believe?
=> Just Click Here Now
Post a Comment