Whether religious messaging should exist in the public sphere has been an increasingly pressing concern for religious groups hoping to attract members of their faith to increase involvement and a sense of community.
Temple Young Israel of Tampa, an Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Florida, faces this troubling issue. Young Israel has historically hosted events centered around Jewish holidays to unite the surrounding community. One of these events, Chanukah on Ice, consists of "ice-skating, food, music, a raffle, and the lighting of an ice-sculpted menorah." Rabbi Rivkin of Young Israel requested the Hillsboro Area Regional Transit Authority (HART) to post the advertisement along their bus routes to publicize this event. The ad consisted of an image of a menorah alongside the text: "Ice skating to Jewish music around the flaming menorah." Ultimately, HART rejected this proposal based on its policy that "does not allow religious affiliation advertising." Rabbi Rivkin appealed this decision to the HART CEO but was faced with the response to remove the image of the menorah, which Rivkin refused. Upon the first lawsuit filed by Young Israel against HART, the Federal District Court found that HART's ban on religious advertisements, although arbitrary, poses a "discriminatory and standardless" practice and that the banning of religious ads should cease immediately. HART appealed this decision, and the result was a ruling in favor of Young Israel, stating that "HART's religious ad ban is arbitrary" but failed to touch on whether this policy was "viewpoint discriminatory." The failure to address this crucial detail in the case led to the request for a rehearing by Young Israel.
The issue is the conflict between HART's refusal of the religious ad on government property and the First Amendment's special protection of religion. Additionally, this case involves the prohibition of religion in the public sphere and the probable outcomes of this. Thus, does the denial of Temple Young Israel's access to religiously advertise on HART's public bus route violate the constitutional rights of Young Israel under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment and discriminate against religious advertisements?
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment aims to safeguard Americans' religious expression of freedom as long as it does not disrupt public safety or threaten the state. Therefore, religious expression must be dealt with with care and priority despite conflicting personal beliefs. In this case, it is essential to focus on the Free Exercise granted to Young Israel and the prevalence of religion in the public square and its potential regulation. HART's ad policy reinforces the idea that religion should be separated from the public square by placing religious ads in a group with those endorsing "alcohol, tobacco, illegal drugs, obscenity, nudity, profanity, politics, pornography, discrimination, and violence." As a result, HART creates a grouping of topics that can be interpreted as unacceptable in the public sphere. This may lead to the opposition of religion or its association with these generally unfavored things. Therefore, although HART's policy of banning all religious advertisements is neutral at face value, its result harms religious institutions and their right to Free Exercise. Additionally, justifying an exclusionary rule regarding religion may lead to the enactment of stricter rules restricting religious freedoms. An example may be banning religious speeches in public parks. The outcomes of this case pose an issue to the Free Exercise rights of Young Israel and other religious institutions. Lastly, there is great harm in the failure of the court to address whether the restriction of religious speech was content-based or viewpoint-based, a crucial factor in what is viewed as Constitutional. The question arises when touching on this issue: was Young Israel's advertisement rejected due to its imagery or the religious beliefs presented?
Sources:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/menorahs-one-sacred-sheep-zero-the-7329422/
7 comments:
Hi Tess,
I enjoyed reading your blog post and I feel that this issue is incredibly relevant. One of the privileges associated with living in America is the right to practice and preach various religious beliefs. The advertisement of a "Chanukah on Ice Event" is neutral in the sense that attendance is optional, and the advertisement does not encourage violence or promote hatred. I agree that HART's decision to reject the advertisement is unfounded, and "discriminatory". Further, I agree with your analysis that "Young Israel's advertising for their annual Chanukah celebration does not pose a threat".
Additionally, the First Amendment protects religious expression and free exercise. As such, Young Israel should receive protection under the law, and should be allowed to advertise with the transit authority.
I agree with the author's perspective on the separation of religion from the public sphere in the context of Temple Young Israel's case. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious expression, and HART's refusal to allow religious advertisements appears to violate Young Israel's constitutional rights. While HART's policy may seem neutral on the surface, it groups religious expression with potentially harmful content. The advertisement, although religious, did not force anyone to attend the event, nor put down another religion, it merely made viewers aware of an event. I believe that Young Israel should be permitted to advertise with HART based on their First Amendment protections.
Hi Tess
I really enjoyed reading this case and feel like this issue is a good one to address. I would also agree with your reasoning that rejecting Young Israel's advertisement was a violation of their First Amendment protections. I agree with your analysis that at face value banning all religious advertisements is neutral, but it ultimately violates their right to their First Amendment. I also agree your analysis that this advertisement does not threaten the public sphere in any matter. Overall, I thought this was an extremely interesting and relevant case.
Tess, I really enjoyed reading your post. I agree with you that Temple Young Israel’s constitutional rights were violated. I believe that since Hillsboro Area Regional transit riders are constitutionally-allowed to freely express their religion while using the public transportation, it seems that using the bus routes to advertise for an event they are holding is not much different. I agree with you that the flyers pose no specific danger or threat to other transit riders who may see them and that ruling in favor of HART could lead to the enactment of stricter rules regarding religious freedoms. It will be interesting to see what the court rules on whether HART’s policy is “viewpoint discriminatory” or not.
I agree with your findings about this case. The law seems to be neutral on face value, but as you stated it actually promotes secularism over religion for no good reason. The exercise of the jewish group cannot be infringed in my opinion since there is no real threat to society or good order if religion is being promoted, similar to a soda brand or a casino. If these are considered not a threat to society than a religious ad cannot be as well. I think my only question would be if HART is owned by the state government, maybe they should not allow religious advertisements, as it could seem to be a state endorsement? I am not exactly sure though about the specifities in the case, and I am pretty sure I have seen religious ads on the MBTA (Massachussetts Bay Transportation Authority).
I agree with you that Temple Young Israel's First Amendment rights were violated by the HARTs denial of promoting the religious ad. It is clear that the ad is not harming other individuals or causing issues of public safety. One may believe that this is a neutral law since HART claims that it is not allowing any religious ads. However, this may be creating an unfair advantage. Individuals posting non religious ads will have an advantage over individuals attempting to post religious ads. One could argue that individuals who are religious are being discriminated against due to the denial of religious ads. One of my concerns about allowing these religious ads are if they can be seen as a form of establishing a religion which would not be constitutional either.
This is a very intriguing and interesting case. I am leaning more on your side being that Temple Young Israel's first amendment right were indeed violated HART. I also agree that the the separation of religion from the public sphere is an increasingly important issue in society. I believe there is indeed a direct violation according to the First Amendment Free exercise clause. I see there being no outstanding harm or physical violence in the equation of posting this advertisement. The jewish group should not be muted and censored by HART due to their being no threat. I also don't see people being forced to attend or anything of nature.
Post a Comment