Saturday, October 26, 2019

Pro Islamic claims in Maryland School disregarded by supreme court


In 2014, a student from the a public high school in Charles County, Maryland sued the La Plata High School on the grounds that her first amendment rights were violated.  This came about from the student’s world history class and the instruction on the Islamic faith.  The class had an assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer, and because the prayer consists of a profession of faith towards the religion, the student felt that her own religious beliefs in Christianity would be infringed upon.  As well as failing the class, the school required the student to watch a “Pro-Islam” presentation, and the student also felt that this presentation was very much favoring the Islamic faith and advocating against her own Christian faith.  With this, the student and her family saw an advocation of Islam being projected by the school as well as an anti-christian view.  Despite these claims, the supreme court rejected the case and decided that the lower courts had made the correct decision in ruling in favor of the schools.

The school system was deemed to be in the right, on the grounds of the first amendment’s establishment clause.  The court interpreted the instruction of Islam to be appropriate on behalf of the school’s responsibilities.  The school and its administration are in charge of controlling the methods and speech used for their instruction, and given the facts of the case, the supreme court approved of the decisions of the lower appeal courts.  In Stone v. Graham, the court provides useful interpretation on how the establishment clause should be used in these situations.  There is assumed to be an educational motivation in the inclusion of the religion in the curriculum.  Similarly, in Engel v. Vitale, the court decided that the government must remain neutral in matters such as non-mandatory prayers, deciding that even if a prayer Is not required to be recited, it still is not a neutral stance taken by the group.  This should be contrasted to the case in question, as the assignment to write out a prayer is purely educational, and is not under the same question as that of Engel v. Vitale.  The courts determination was correct in deciding that the school was in the right.  To have the courts deciding on issues such as these is a problem for the first amendment, as the supreme courts should not be micro-managing each and every aspect of religious material in educational settings.  Justice Rehnquist, in Wallace v. Jeffrey, states: “As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means” (292).  This rings true for this case, being that the school is simply showing how religion can be used in a sectarian way.  While Islam, especially with its political significance, might be contrary to a particular student’s religious beliefs, that does not rule it out for being an acceptable subject to be taught by the educational systems provided by the government.

This case is also very relevant to the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, where the Lemon test was created in its resultant decision.  The Lemon test provides a threefold question for the determination of a case’s validity in line with the establishment clause and the first amendment.  With regard to this test, the decision for this case might seem like excessive entanglement, though religious studies serves a clear sectarian purpose.  Additionally, there is a clear state interest in education, and there is not enough reason to posit that there is any favoring or aid to the religion on behalf of the state and its school.

I feel that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision to comply with the lower court’s decision.  There is sectarian purpose behind teaching various religions, especially considering the context of this case, as the student was a part of a world history class.  If there ever was a class or similar situation where a state school was showing establishment by directly supporting the observance of a religion or the beliefs behind the religion, I believe it would be much more clear than a case such as this.  The neutrality of the state and this particular religion were upheld by the school’s instruction, and this seems to show fairly clearly how religion should be implemented in public schooling.  There should not be a complete separation of all religion from educational settings, as there is a state interest in its instruction.  That said, the courts should remain consistent in these such decisions to ensure that they remain in this true neutral position.  To continue in this notion, as was decided in this instance, is to ensure that the government upholds its state interest and neither advances nor detracts from religious institutions.

8 comments:

  1. I agree with the author's decision. Although I am not certain what the material is that was being taught, I do believe that the teaching of many religious histories is important for our public education system. They have all played a large part in the world's history, and therefore have a place in every world course, including the one in dispute here. I do wish that the material in question was better specified in the article. If the material being taught was a prayer from any religion with no true historical value, the court would most likely have to restrict it do to the Lemon test's entanglement clause.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do agree that worldly religions should be taught in schools for secular, educational purposes. In particular, I believe the instruction of Islam is important. But I do not agree with the nature in which Islam was taught in this school. The assignment placed a substantial burden upon the student. A student should not be failed and required to watch a pro-Islam presentation for failure to complete one assignment. This seems very unjust to me and reminds me of Nathan's recent blog post, in which the business owner who denied his services to a same-sex couple has to undergo diversity training, which was also a substantial burden.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree with Brendan’s opinion on the decision of the case. I believe there are grounds for determining an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The importance is in the facts of the case, simply asking the student to write the Islamic conversion prayer, could be deemed a secular legislative purpose on the grounds of education. However, the fact the student was required to watch a “pro-Islam” presentation, is a clear advancement of a certain religion. Additionally, given the presentation in question, if one were to argue it did not clearly advance religion, it would require excessive entanglement of the government to determine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I both agree and disagree. Like Sarah, I agree that there is a secular purpose in instructing worldly religious beliefs for educational purposes as well as the teachings of both morals and ethics. However, the specific assignment to write the Islamic conversion prayer seems to place an unconstitutional burden on the student. If the student was uncomfortable, the student should not have been forced to comply and watch a "Pro-Islam" presentation and an exception or alternative assignment should have been allowed to prevent the establishment of religion and entanglement of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I do agree that world religions are a valuable subject to be taught, I do think that the student has a right to opt out of the particular assignment that would have made her declare the truth of a different religion. The fact that the student was not given an alternative assignment is a violation of their Free Speech by compelling them to partake in a religious practice. The educative purpose behind teaching world religions is secular, but making this assignment of writing the conversion prayer part of curriculum seems unnecessary and the consequence of watching pro-Islam presentation also seems excessive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree that teaching the history of different religions is important and deemed "neutral" because it's not just one religion being taught. Justice Scalia discussed in the Lamb's Chapel case that she and others do not believe the Lemon Test is a great way to draw conclusions in cases because the Lemon Test is used when the Supreme Court wants to strike something down that it forbids, but they decide to not use it in cases they want to uphold a practice it forbids. So I agree with the court's decision in this case, but I disagree with their use of the Lemon Test to draw on their conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The advancement of pro-Islamic values is evident, through both the writings of the prayers and the presentation of the video, which is seen as an advocation of religion and an endorsement of it. False teachings should not be allowed in school. There is excessive entanglement as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with the author to a certain extent. I am in complete accordance with the school's decision to teach religion as a form of teaching history. As we all know Christianity is heavily intertwined with American history. However, it is a bit interesting and alarming that the school would assign the school children to write the "conversion" prayer out of all of the different prayers. The school also then made a mistake when forcing the girl to sit down and watch a "Pro-Islam" video. I believe that the school had good intentions with the class but the delivery was very poor. This is a case of a violation of the establishment clause.

    ReplyDelete