MIDDLE SCHOOL SPEECH

Middle School Speech

I remember my middle school graduation as if it was yesterday, the parents in the auditorium cheering for their children. The thing that got students excited was the speech given by the top student in the class. It felt good watching a fellow classmate talk about the school year and what waits for us in high school. Recently at a middle school in Craryville, New York one girl original graduation speech had a piece omitted and sued the school on violating her right to Freedom of Speech and violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The student known as A.M., in court papers, was giving the opportunity to give a speech at her middle school “Moving up Ceremony”. A.M. asked her English teacher to help her in revising her proposed speech. The final sentence on the speech said,” As we say our goodbyes and leave middle school behind, I say to you, may the LORD bless you and keep you; make His face shine upon you and be gracious to you; lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace.” This decision could not been made on the teacher so the teacher told A.M. to consult with the principal. Principal Neil Howard allegedly told A.M. that the last line “sounded too religious” and should be omitted. A.M.’s mother requested that Superintendent Mark Sposato review the matter. Sposato agreed with Howard. The superintendent said the religious message delivered by A.M. could violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Under the establishment clause, government bodies, including public schools, are barred from promoting religion. A.M. delivered her message on her graduation date as planned with the last line of her speech omitted.

Soon after A.M. speech, A.M.’s mother sued the school district contending that they violated her free-speech rights. Specifically, she alleged that they discriminated against her on the basis of her religious viewpoint. A.M. argued that the standard in the U.S. Supreme Court’s student-speech decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District , a court case in 1969 which 16 students planned to wear black armbands to school in an attempt to protest the war on Vietnam, should control the analysis of the case. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case the principal of the school found out about the students plan and mad e a ban on the arm bands and those who wore it would not be permitted into the school. Through their parents, the students sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression and sought an injunction to prevent the school district from disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case and held that the school district’s actions were reasonable to uphold school discipline.

The school district argued that this case proper analysis should come from the student-press decision Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, a court cased in which a school overridden a school newspaper of two articles that the school felt inappropriate. In this case the court ordered that the school officials can censor school-sponsored student expression if they have a legitimate educational reason for doing so. A.M. tried to counter this argument by portraying that the school event was sponsored by the student council. This argument became invalid because the court was told the event was funded by the school. Along with this the school district had a legitimate educational reason for not allowing the sentence to be said at the ceremony. Sharpe noted that the school district had received complaints about a Christmas tree from the parents of a Jewish student and complaints from the parents of a Jehovah’s Witness student regarding the school’s Halloween activities. “Given the past complaints Taconic received from the parents of the Jewish and Jehovah’s Witness students, and their desire to avoid violating the Establishment Clause, its decision to edit the last sentence of A.M.’s speech was reasonable,” he wrote. After this argument the court dismissed the case and confirmed that the School District acted appropriately and in accordance with the requirements of the First Amendment with respect to this matter at all times.

  The factor that helped the school district win this case was exactly what the court said as the school district acted and respected the First Amendment. “The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .” The education system is apart of the government and must withhold to the Constitution for being a public institution of the government. The school provided the evidence that they have not place one religion over another. The school district portrayed they was neutral in the situation. But, does this trump the beliefs of a citizen? The school stopped A.M. from practicing her religion in a speech the school has asked her to write. The school has done what the government has tried to protect in the majority over the minority.

I would have to agree with the court on this decision with omitting the sentence out of the speech. I believe the school has to be neutral in this situation and appeal to entire school. The ceremony was a school based event and should appeal to the whole audience. By allowing the student to express her religion at this event would put the school in a tight spot of them praising one religion over another.. But who am I tell to tell that student that she can’t express her religious belief to her fellow classmates? Even though the government must be neutral but must protect the minority over the majority.     

Can I have some Moorish?

According to the Washington Post, 28 year old Lamont Butler, like any other new home owner, recently invited friends over to show off his new home;  he was especially eager considering his new digs in Bethesda, MD consisted of 12 bedroom, 6 kitchen adorned with imported marble.  The home hosted a number pivotal political gatherings during the Clinton campaign, and Al Gore planted a number of trees that are growing in the back yard.  All is seemingly normal, until it is revealed that the home actually does not belong to Mr. Butler, but rather he broke in, and deemed the home his own.  Mr. Butler claimed that the house belonged to him because he is Moorish.  

The Moorish Science Temple of America was founded in 1913 by a man named Timothy Drew, who later proclaimed himself the as Prophet Noble Drew Ali.  The Moorish Science Temple of America is considered a sect of Islam, and is also a compilation of Buddhism, Christianity, Freemansonry, Gnosticism, and Taoism.  It is a divine national movement thats purpose is to teach its people what is necessary to become "better citizens, how to obey the law, and to not use any confusion to over thrown the laws of the said government but to obey herby."  Additionally the Moorish faith teaches its people about their "nationality, the divine creed of Moorish Americans, birthrights, to love instead of hate, and that they are part and partial of the said government and must live the life accordingly."

In an recent NPR transcript, radio host Melissa Block speaks with assistant professor of religious studies, Spencer Dew, at the Centenary College of Louisiana regarding the Moorish Science.  Block starts off the show introducing the Washington Post article regarding Mr. Butler from afore mentioned.  Apparently, Mr. Butler believe that he was not breaking and entering simply because he is a Moorish American, therefore he is a sovereign citizen and is not subject to federal and state laws.  According to Dew, this is part of a growing trend of Moorish Americans- this idea that they are exempt from US law.  One of the majors doctrines in the Moorish Science Temple is the belief that African-Americans are of 'Moorish' decent (specifically from Morocco) so because it is associated with Africa, is is also a religion that is associated with dark-skinned people.  Additionally, it is associated with social respectability and elite status.  Furthermore, Dew claims that the creation of this religious movement at the time was an attempt to trace out a scared history for those that would have otherwise just been considered 'Negros'.     

According to the radio transcript, as of 2013, there is still a growing number of self-described Moorish Americans that continue to claim properties as their own, who additionally interpret national laws however they deem appropriate.  For example, is has been reported that some Moorish Americans have claimed that they do not need a drivers license, license plate, and that they are exempt from paying taxes.  Additionally, Chicago police have reported incidences of Moorish Americans who do not stop at traffic lights, make and use homemade passports, and claim that they have diplomatic immunity.  They claim that "we are Moors, and therefore, we're not American citizens.  We're not subject to your American laws."  Further, a woman in Connecticut claimed that her home was no longer part of the United States because it seceded the Union.  

I found this case to be interesting due to its extra-ordinary nature.  Similar to my first blog post, I think in the case of the Moorish Science Temple of America, the legitimacy of the religion is relevant, in addition, who is privy to religious exemption? Does the legitimacy or popularity of a religion increase the favorability or likelihood of exemption from the law?  For example, the Obama administration made separate accommodations for religious groups regarding their insurance plans, and we have read Supreme Court cases in class that have affirmed religious exemptions.  If exemptions are given by the Federal Government for specific situations and certain religious groups, where is the line drawn?  I personally think that religious exemptions of any kind are a slippery slope, opening the door for a number of different requests, preference of religion over non-religion, or even religion over religion.   Would inhibiting Moorish Americans be a violation of their Free Exercise Clause?  In addition, why shouldn't Moors be granted religious exemption since claiming sovereignty seems to be a component of their religious practice?  

Personally, I think that breaking the law is breaking the law, but this case is difficult to determine what is right and what is wrong do to religious expression.  I know that I do not want to be the person to tell people that they are wrongly expressing their religious beliefs.  Who's to say who is right and who is wrong?  I do think that breaking and entering, fraudulent passports and drivers licenses are a direct violation of the Federal Law, and that they should be penalized for their actions, but I know there is definitely room for interpretation.   

Same-Sex Marriage Discrimination Case: Iowa Addition

Gortz Haus Gallery is an art gallery owned by a Mennonite couple in Iowa. Just a week ago from today, the couple sued the Iowa Civil Rights Commission because they faced penalty for refusing to host same-sex weddings in the church building that is a part of their facilities. The couple, Betty and Richard Odgaard, claim that same-sex marriage is fundamentally against their religious beliefs as Mennonites and that by complying with the law they are in public violation of those beliefs. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission dictates that "any...proprietor... of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof: (a) [t]o refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity" etc. As far as the state legislature is concerned, the Odgaards are in violation of discrimination. Additionally, it is important to note that the State of Iowa does legally recognize same-sex marriage. The couple was sued prior to their complaint with the ICRC based on a discrimination case after they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony. With the suit, the couple has received countless pieces of hate-mail and threats (included as evidence in the complaint, if interested). Ultimately the Odgaards wish to be exempt from the legislation and for an injunction to be placed on the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs attempt to establish in their complaint that they have not and do not discriminate in regards to sexual orientation, stating that they have hired and served gays and lesbians in the past. Furthermore they consistently maintain that they do not wish to violate their beliefs and that the space used for the wedding ceremonies is explicitly a church. Thus the couple would feel their beliefs further violated by hosting same-sex ceremonies in such a space. Other employees of the art gallery share in the Mennonite beliefs, and the Odgaards do not want to subject them to violating their own religious beliefs as well.

Some would argue that the Odgaards have clearly discriminated against same-sex couples by refusing to accommodate them. In regards to how the law is stated, they have. We've seen that in past cases, the courts often side in that direction. For example, there was the New Mexico photography company that was found guilty after refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding just this past August. The question becomes then, is there anything different about this specific case?

I do think that the location of these potential services plays a factor in deciding a case like this. If the couple was refusing to host same-sex marriages solely based on their religious beliefs, precedent would show that they would be found guilty. Yet, if they feel as though preforming such a service would desecrate what they consider a place of worship, a sanctuary, are they more validated? Their written complaint does not play this angle as much as I feel it should. Established churches can refuse to preform same-sex marriages, so I feel as though the couple's concerns about the sanctity of the space are honest. Yet at the same time, the opposition could argue that the church is no longer serving its function as a place a worship and exists currently as a business and should be run as one. This is compounded by the fact that Iowa recognizes same-sex marriages. If such a marriage is protected, the argument for a secular business refusing services to a same-sex couple is substantially weakened in that it is almost compulsory that they are recognized as legitimate by the citizens of Iowa.

The complaint further claims that practitioners of the Mennonite faith have historically been persecuted and subsequently protected by the government. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, although dealing with the stricter Amish, the Courts appears to abide by this statement. However, I disagree with this angle. The sect that the couple belongs to has long divulged from its Old Mennonite Roots.To group them in with those persecuted is a small stretch of the truth and to me personally, an invalid argument. Yet, who am I to be that judge?

In the past, I would have quickly sided against the couple. However, I feel slightly different in this case and I am beginning to be a bit more sympathetic to the other side of the argument. This is especially in regards to the hate-mail, which I believe is wildly inappropriate at anytime or from anyone, including the LGBT community. Nonetheless, I find discrimination based on sexual preference to be wrong and prosecutable under the law. Moreover, the current operation of the building is as a business, which in the past I argued must operate secularly, even if religiously themed. Being a former church, this case stretches my willingness to defend that statement steadfast in all situations. However, based on recent precedent, I ultimately believe the court will decide against the couple and uphold the charges against them. 

Here is the full complaint.

War on Christmas

The town of Wausau, Wisconsin is not known for much.  Wausau Paper company, the Eastbay headquarters, and that it was my place of residence this past summer are its only claims to fame.  Recently, however, Wausau East High School has been making headlines in local, national, and biased news outlets over what some are calling a "War on Christmas."

More Jingle Bells, less Silent Night

The issue at hand for this alleged "War on Christmas" is the religious content of music at the holiday concerts of the "Master Singers," Wausau East's elite singing group.  In past years, the Master Singers performed roughly a dozen holiday concerts throughout the local area, with a substantial amount of the songs having a religious theme.  This year, however, the school board received complaints about the content of the musical selections and decided to act.  The verdict the school board granted choir director Phil Buch three options.  Option one was for Buch to choose one religiously themed song for every five secular songs and continue with the holiday themed concert.  Option two was for the Master Singers to perform their holiday concert, but without holiday music.  Option three, which Buch chose, was to cancel the December concerts entirely.

The community did not respond well to the school board's ruling.  Even some school board members, such as Pat McKee, want the board to reverse their decision and allow choir directors to select their own music.  McKee cites numerous calls and letters that the school board has received in response to the decision, "99.9%" of which were written in outrage.  He puts the blame on school superintendent Kathleen Williams, who he claims has also not responded to questions regarding the origin of this conflict.  In defense of the ruling, school board president Michelle Shaeffer said that the goal of the ruling was not to eliminate all religious music from holiday concerts but instead prevent "too much" religious content in the program.  Shaefer also cited the religious pluralism that America prides itself on, and believes that it is within the school's best interest to respect that, despite the fact that the majority of Americans and Wausau residents are Christians.

Despite choir director Phil Buch admitting he is a "man of faith," he has been clear that his intention is not to promote religion over religion or religion over non-religion, but rather teach the students through the most relevant songs available.  While this issue primarily deals with songs about the Christian holiday of Christmas, Buch says that his choir does not limit itself to religious songs that are strictly Christian.  He says he has chosen Hebrew, Russian, Italian, and Canadian songs for his choir to sing, thus he believes he is not favoring Christianity.  Nevertheless, Buch still felt it was better to cancel the concerts than to elect option one of holding a holiday concert with one religious song per five secular songs.

This issue has not been brought to court and remains an internal issue for the school, though they are facing significant external pressure from parents.  The school board's ruling was certainly based on the Establishment Clause, though with a little creativity, perhaps parents could make a case that their children's free exercise was being compromised.  In this post, however, we will focus on whether the school board's ruling represents a proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

There are many aspects of this issue to consider when deciding whether the school board's actions were justified.  First and most significantly, this is a public school, funded by the state.  If Wausau East was a private school, this would not be an issue.  Second, the school board provided the choir with two legitimate options for acceptable ways to allow the winter concerts, which was certainly a compromise. The school board did not shut down the concerts, Buch shut down the concerts because he felt that was preferable to being required to perform five songs like "Jingle Bells" for every "Silent Night."  Third, the school board may have felt that the amount of Christian music was excessive, but it was likely done with proportion to the religious affiliation of the district, including minority representation.   Fourth, the National Association for Music Education says that limiting religious music in schools would be detrimental to the student's learning experiences since religious music represents a large portion of relevant music available.  The views of this association are significant because they oversee many American High School music programs.  The first two points support the school board's decision while the last two contradict it.  This issue is very complicated and no matter what action the court took, someone was going to be upset.  However, the school board showed that there is no constitutional right against being upset and took action that consequently upset the most people.  Was it the right action?

I believe that the school board was justified in their ruling to limit religious music at holiday concerts but I find their ruling to be too harsh.  Instead of one of every five songs, I would like to propose that no more than half of the songs chosen have a religious theme.  Additionally, I would add a rule that of the religious songs chosen, no more than half can be from any single tradition.  I find this solution to be rectify the complaints Buch had regarding his limited access to much of the relevant material for holiday concerts, while also preventing "too much" religious material and ensuring that minority traditions are represented.  A strict separationist approach of not allowing any religiously themed music would result in favoring non-religion over religion, but allowing all religiously themed music favors religion over non-religion.  The question at hand is now where the line should be drawn.  This is somewhat of an arbitrary task with no clear precedent, which is why this is such a difficult issue to resolve.

What do you think?  Did the school board get it right?  Did I get it right?  Was any action necessary?  Do you have a different solution?  Is this a "War on Christmas?"

Taking Jesus Out of a Public School, Literally

A public middle school in Ohio has had a huge portrait of Jesus hung in the entryway since 1947. The majority of the school is Christian and therefore sees no harm in the poster. Parents and students who were unhappy with this and felt it was an establishment of religion sued the school with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Wisconsin Freedom From Religious Foundation. Seeking to avoid a lawsuit, the school board put the poster away in an art-room storage area, but the ACLU claimed that the mere presence of the poster in the public school building violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The district court in Ohio ultimately agreed with them and has determined that this was an unconstitutional establishment that the school district subjected its students to.

The ACLU lawyers feel this was the right decision and based their case off of previous Supreme Court cases dealing with the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision of 1971 the court determined, in a case involving state aid to Parochial schools, that there could not be too much government entanglement with religion, there needed to be a secular purpose if there was an overlap, and the government could not inhibit or promote religion. This came to be known as the Lemon test, and when applied to this case, it is clear that the presence of a poster of Jesus in a public school violates the Lemon test. Even the school district does not attempt to claim that there is a secular purpose for the poster, it is without a doubt a preferential treatment of Christianity over any other religion, and it seems to be an excessive entanglement of religion and the state.

However, many people who supported the school district in this case felt that because it has historically been there for 65 years, and it was placed in the building by a group of students, who are encouraged to express their beliefs and opinions, there was no harm in its presence. Their view is that no one is forced to believe in the religious views represented by the picture and it was merely there because of the historical relevance that it has in representing the group of students that placed it there. It is important to note that much of the country feels strongly that this decision and other similar decisions are an abuse of power by the courts and a ploy by the ACLU (or whichever foundation was fighting against religious establishment) to make money. This conservative news source has elicited many comments on the issue that make it evident how strongly many people feel against the court’s decision.

Those in favor of allowing the poster to remain in the school would cite the Marsh v. Chambers 1983 Supreme Court case as evidence that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of allowing an exception to the Establishment Clause when there is a historical argument. This case was concerning whether or not the Nebraskan legislature should be allowed to continue to hire a Presbyterian minister to say a prayer before each legislating day. The Court determined that because they had historically done this, there was not a serious threat of an establishment of religion, and therefore the practice could continue.

However, to me this case more closely resembles the 1980 Stone v. Graham case, in which the Supreme Court determined that public schools could not be required to hang the Ten Commandments in classrooms, whether they were there for secular, historical purposes or not. Part of the Court’s concern was that the presence of a religiously affiliated poster on the wall could potentially convince already vulnerable children that these beliefs were more correct than the beliefs their parents might otherwise be promoting. Because this current case is also within the school setting, I would assume that the Court would have these same concerns.

I personally think the district court made the correct decision on this matter. There seems to be a blatant violation of the Establishment Clause, without any real secular purpose. This is a public school setting, and although a majority of the students may be Christian, there is obviously a minority who are bothered by the presence of the poster. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the minority. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the state from imposing the majority religion on those minority citizens. Public schools are funded by the state, and therefore must abide by this precedent. There should not be an exception simply because the poster had been in the school for 65 years before someone decided they would raise a complaint with the Court. The amount of time it has been there should not be relevant as an excuse for violating the First Amendment.

What do you think, should the school district take this case further, or has the court made the correct decision on the matter? 

A religious battle has been waged in North Dakota for several months.  The battle is over “Measure 3”, a controversial measure that would add an amendment to the state constitution.  The amendment will protect religious freedoms from the secular state.  More specifically the amendment will... “prohibit the government from putting a burden [on] a person’s or religious organizations religious liberty.”  Those who back the amendment feel that it is the only defense for religious freedom that the state can offer.  Essentially, this amendment will allow religious organizations and individual to trump state law as a direct result of their religious devotion. Critics of the amendment feel that this extremely vague measure will establish a religiously influenced scapegoat for individuals to get away with punishable crimes.  North Dakota residents are fearful of potential repercussions for passing this measure.  More specifically the article cites fear of blatant discrimination by companies.  Others argue that the rights of children will be infringed on.  Some individuals went as far as to argue that the passage of this amendment could protect child abuse perpetuated by religious observation.

 “But critics argued the amendment could cause unintended problems, included providing a curtain of protection for parents who abuse their children or employers who discriminate based on differences in morals and religious beliefs.”

The potential for error appears to be enormous, however many North Dakota residents argue that the room for error is miniscule.  Christopher Dodson of the North Dakota Catholic Counsel provides a cohesive counter argument.  “The measure itself says that it doesn’t affect those acts which the state has a compelling interest in preventing,” he told NPR. “And it’s somewhat irresponsible to even imply that the state doesn’t have an interest in protecting children, women and vulnerable persons.”  If this amendment does regard compelling state interest then some of the potential flaws should be ironed out.  North Dakota is not alone in their pursuit for religious tolerance.  Other states have implemented similar measures to protect organization from some of the controversial implications that come with the Affordable Healthcare Act.  In North Dakota, the measure was rejected with a two thirds vote and residents will not see the new measure pan out.  Regardless of the vote, the measure does address the issue of religious freedom protected by the religion clause of the First Amendment.  The article presents the potential for states to infringe on individual’s and organizations right to pursue their religious devotion in the public realm.  This measure was designed to prevent the state from infringing on or limiting religious practice, however its raises another issue.  The issue being the Establishment Clause.  The clause denounces government laws, measures, etc that promote religion.  More recently, the lemon test had been used to determine whether or not the state’s decision is in agreement with the clause.  Many believe that Measure 3 does not have a secular religious purpose and is not strictly separate (church and state) in nature.  Measure 3 was deemed too religious and unfit for the state of North Dakota.  Personally, I feel that it is crucial to protect religious freedom, however the state overreached with Measure 3.  North Dakota violated the establishment clause in their pursuit to protect religious freedom, thus making their effort unconstitutional.  I sympathize with those who feel violated by the state, however I can not agree with legislation that fails to abide to the very fabric of the Establishment Clause.  I feel the event and subsequent article allows us to understand the fragile relationship between religion and law.  We can see the struggle to protect religious freedoms, however in this case we can see just how difficult it is to pass laws that do just that.  The state can not dance around certain issues in order to address others.  The message of the Constitution must be preserved in the state's actions.  In other words, the means must justify the end.  This is an extremely important case, because it shines light on the pursuit for religious tolerance.  There is, without a doubt, a need for states to begin understanding the delicate relationship between religion and law.  With controversial issues sprouting up, like the Affordable Healthcare Act, courts will need to understand the Constitution in order to make fair and balanced rulings in cases to come.  On the contrary, this case also allows us to look back at past cases (like Marsh v Chambers) in order to understand whether or not the state is instituting blatantly religious practices.  This case proves that states are being held accountable and that the integrity of the Constitution is unscathed. In the end, I must maintain my stance that Measure 3 violates the Establishment Clause even though it was designed to protect religious freedom.     

Evolution and Atheism: Is There a Connection?

On September 27, 2013, Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE) filed a lawsuit against the Kansas State Board of Education to block them from teaching classes compatible with the newly-released Next Generation Science Standards.  These standards are part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative that has done extensive research to identify weaknesses in public school education.  The new standards were designed to strengthen math and science education and to better prepare K-12 students for potential college educations and careers in these growing industries.  Evolution and climate change are two key teachings in the new standards and most of the opposition has been aimed at these subjects.

COPE’s self-proclaimed mission is to “promote objectivity in public school curricula that address religious questions and issues so that the educational effect of the teaching is religiously neutral.”  The non-profit strongly supports religious rights for parents and students in public schools, and encourages school boards to leave information out of lessons that might conflict with religious teachings.  In this case, COPE is arguing that the adoption of these standards by the state of Kansas represents an establishment and an endorsement of a non-religious worldview and a promotion of atheism.  Since teaching of the new standards begins in kindergarten, COPE thinks the new standards will indoctrinate impressionable young children with materialistic and atheistic world views.  The group argues that teachers will ask definitively religious questions about where humans come from and how the species has developed and will only provide non-religious answers stemming from the theory of evolution.  COPE sees this as an attempt to establish a particular worldview that amounts to an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.  The non-profit requests that Kansas public schools present the limitations of science and teach students that religious theories, specifically creationism, can answer some of life’s more difficult questions.

Under the First Amendment, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that establishes religion, though this has been interpreted to have different meanings throughout the Supreme Court’s history.  In Everson v. Board of Education, the Establishment Clause was interpreted broadly and reinforced the idea of wall of separation between Church and State.  About twenty years later in Epperson v. Arkansas, the Court ruled that the government must be neutral and non-preferential with respect to religious theories, doctrines, and practices, and must not be hostile to or promote any religion or non-religion.  In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established the Lemon test which identifies requirements for legislation involving religion.  The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and the statute must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.  The issue at stake in this case is whether teaching evolution as a scientific principle in public schools establishes non-religion or promotes atheism over other religious beliefs.

I think it is important to realize with this case and others like it that while some religious people have accepted evolution as a teaching in which they believe, a substantial portion of the country remains skeptical about the theory’s veracity.  Creationism and other human origin and development theories remain prevalent in American society and these world views should not be immediately dismissed.  I do not, however, think that teaching evolution as a scientific principle and strengthening science education in public schools amounts to an establishment of or a preference for non-religion.  Evolution is not inherently atheistic and teaching the theory to students, no matter their age, will not “indoctrinate” them to accept only evolution-based views.  Evolution, although an important principle of the scientific standards, is presented as a theory and students are not forced to profess that they believe in its premises.  Teaching evolution in public schools also does not prevent parents from providing supplementary education for their children at home or in religious institutions.

Epperson advocates for neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion, and states that the government “may not be hostile to any religion or the advocacy of no-religion.”  I think ruling in favor of the Kansas School Board is the state’s best and most feasible method to achieve neutrality and not be hostile to religion or non-religion in its public schools.  I also think that the Kansas School Board’s implementation of new educational standards passes the Lemon test.  The standards have a clear secular purpose to prepare students for further education and potential careers in a growing science- and technology-dominated world.  The standards do not have the primary effect of advancing any religion nor do they inhibit its practice since students can learn about evolution in public school and receive specifically religious education elsewhere.  The statute also does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.  I actually do not think it fosters any entanglement with religion at all.

It is still important to realize that true neutrality in a situation like this one is difficult, if not impossible to achieve.  The Supreme Court has already ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that a statute requiring public schools to teach creationism whenever they teach evolution is unconstitutional because the statute’s purpose was to promote a specific religion.  In addition, students who are not taught at least the basic premises of evolution will likely be disadvantaged in later schooling and when beginning their job search.  It follows, then, that the Kansas School Board should move ahead with its implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards.  While opponents of the standards may still argue that this action privileges non-religion over religion in public schools, it is the most neutral and the only constitutional option.

What do you think?  Does teaching evolution in public schools promote atheism?  Do these new science standards establish non-religion?

Challenging the Pledge of Allegiance 

Atheist father speaking up.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 the Justices of Massachusetts Supreme Court examined the nature of the Pledge of Allegiance as they heard a challenge from an atheist group who want the pledge banned in Massachusetts schools. The plaintiffs are going to try to argue that the pledge's reference to "one nation under God" violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The line the plaintiffs will attempt to call into question is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." claiming that the reference to God is a direct respect of religion and disrespect to the nonreligious in public school classrooms.

A popular argument supporting the pledge in classrooms is that the pledge recitation must always be voluntary and never coerced. Therefore it is thought that atheist children can opt out of the pledge, and there will be no repercussions for them. This argument is especially compelling when we consider the case of West Virginia State Board of Ed v. Barnette. In this case it was ruled that a compulsory flag-salute for public school children is unconstitutional on the basis that "compulsory unification of opinion" was in conflict with First Amendment values. On this basis, some argue that since there is no coercion, the recitation of the pledge is constitutional. 

However, a later case which we read together in class called Engel v. Vitale offers a useful counter to the compulsory argument. In this case it was ruled that prayer written by the government and recited by non-objecting students outside of regular classwork in a public school is unconstitutional. The ruling also stated the even if they prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is recited, it is still unconstitutional. I see a parallel here in that the ruling of this case completely invalidates the argument of the pledge being voluntary. In the Engel case, even though the prayer was voluntary, it was still ruled that its presence in the classroom was unconstitutional. Along that same line of logic, it seems to me that the pledge may be ruled unconstitutional in the classroom regardless of the fact if it is voluntary or not. 

Children reciting the pledge.

More importantly, this case brings about the issues of competing interpretations of the establishment clause and the definition of "neutrality." Over time the idea of neutral has evolved and become more inclusive of different types of neutrality. Originally, the Establishment Clause was interpreted as to have no one religion be established as an official religion, as one supported by the state. Then as time passed and more cases were presented to the Supreme Court, there was a question of neutrality among all religions and the most controversial aspect: neutrality among religion and non-religion. The famous words of the Court in Everson v. US "Neither [a state nor the federal government] can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another" seems to attempt to be clear and very neat at face value, but has proven to be just the opposite. 

The case that the plaintiffs are trying to make in this case would appeal to the idea that the government is favoring religion over non-religion by having a pledge that has a reference to theistic ideals. However, if the government were to rule in favor of the plaintiffs and ban the pledge, others could argue that this banning is actually favoring non-religion and therefore not "neutral" in this sense. I would disagree with that argument and say that by removing the word God from the pledge in the public school environment it is not hostile or harmful towards religion, it is just being more neutral to those who can not identify with it based on their own religious beliefs.

The old flag salute...strange?

Another popular argument defending the pledge and other questionable establishment cases is the support of historical customs and traditions. The pledge was first recited in public schools in 1892, 121 years ago. However, the pledge originally didn't have "under God" in it, so our historical figures whom we are trying to respect by keeping their tradition didn't even write this phrase in the pledge in the first place. One of the more significant cases dealing with historical tradition and religion is Marsh v. Chambers. In this case, the Court upheld the tradition of having chaplaincy practiced in legislative court before the court sessions began. The Court ruled that since prayers by tax-supported legislative chaplains could be traced back to the First Continental Congress it was considered to be a "part of the fabric of our society." The Court claimed that invoking Divine guidance is not an establishment of religion, but rather a "tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country." Marsh only has partial relevance to this topic because it is not dealing with school children, who are highly susceptible to being molded. It has to do with consenting adults, who have already had significant life experience and are usually already set in their religious ideals. 

In my opinion, I think asking public school children to recite the phrase (voluntary or not) "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution. Although I think the pledge is unconstitutional across the board, in this post I am purely arguing for the purposes of addressing the pledge recitation in classrooms, not the pledge itself. It seems clear to me having this phrase in the pledge is not "neutral" in both senses of the word. It is not neutral among all religious denominations because it is embracing a monotheistic idea, and it is not neutral among religion and non-religion because it is clearly supporting theistic and religious belief. Furthermore, I think it is helpful to think about the intent of the pledge recitation here. What is the purpose of the pledge? To foster and facilitate patriotic unity among Americans, who may otherwise be very different but have the pride of a great nation to connect them. Imagine the pledge without this controversial phrase: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." With the omission of the two words "under God" I do not see the intent or meaning of the pledge taken away. It is still a great patriotic phrase that creates unity and a sense of pride in America. 

So what do you all think? Is this phrase a violation under the Establishment clause for public school children? Would it be more "neutral" (the intent of the state) to non-religious groups to take it out? 

Rah Rah for G-O-D!

The cheerleaders at Kountze High School in Southeast Texas sparked controversy under the Friday night lights. They painted the run-through banners with Bible verses such as “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me,” and “If God is for us, who can be against us?” The words on the banners were intended to inspire the football team, but following an anonymous complaint, the district superintendent banned the use of religious themes. Superintendent Kevin Weldon explained, “My personal convictions are that I am a Christian as well. But I’m also a state employee and Kountze ISD representative. And I was advised that such a practice would be in direct violation of United State Supreme Court decisions.” The school district has always been in opposition to the use of Biblical messages on the banners, despite the support the cheerleaders have received from the court.

            Just a few days after news about the ban broke, the cheerleaders took legal action and were granted a temporary order allowing them to continue using the religious language on their signs at football games in the fall of 2012. The case was later brought to court, and in May 2013, the state district judge decided that the cheerleaders’ banner was constitutionally permissible and that no law “prohibits cheerleaders from using religious-themed banners at school sporting events.”

 However, Thomas Brandt, the school district's attorney, pointed out that Judge Steven Thomas ruled that the district can permit the banners under the establishment clause but is not required to do so, and that the banners are the speech of the school, not private speech, so the school has a right to have editorial control of the banners. Initially, the district banned the religious messages, but after a public meeting, the board of trustees issued a resolution in which it decided that the district was not required to prohibit messages on school banners that displayed "fleeting expressions of community sentiment solely because the source or origin of such messages is religious." Judge Thomas did not think the banners violated the establishment clause, and that the school district does not have to permit or deny the use of such language on banners—in other words, they don’t have to express an opinion about the banners, but it’s in their power to do so. The ACLU has since stated, “Although the banners are prepared by the cheerleaders, school officials review and approve the messages.”

 In a more recent development, various civil rights groups have begun to appeal the decision. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State expressed its opposition to allowing Christian messages at a public school sporting event, arguing that students “have the right to take part in school activities without being pressured to participate in religious exercises…and the school has an obligation to protect the religious freedom of all its students, not just those in the majority.” So, in the eyes of the AUSCS, the school district is violating the rights of the minority—precisely what the Establishment Clause is supposed to protect against. They argue that the banners are an imposition on the rights of the minority students attending the school—this group includes Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs. Further, because faith is “profoundly personal, and that students should be able to attend our public schools without being marginalized or feeling pressured to conform to the majority's religious beliefs,” they stand firmly by the position that banners should be kept off the field.

The ACLU filed Amicus Curiae that also focused on the rights on the non-Christian students at the school, rather than the freedom of speech and free exercise of the Christian cheerleaders. The ACLU, in conjunction with an interfaith coalition, argued that because the school has control over the banners, and gives the cheerleaders exclusive access to the field, that the banners are school-sponsored and thus violate the Establishment Clause. The group claimed that just to attend a football game, the non-Christian students are subject to unfair “school-sponsored evangelizing.”

It seems to me that the court made an error in deeming the signs as constitutionally permissible. At a public, non-religious high school, religious messages cannot and should not be displayed, regardless of how many students follow a given tradition. The cheerleaders are representatives of the school and the district, and by allowing the Christian beliefs on the banners the court is establishing a support for the Christian tradition where it does not belong. While I can concede that the district and the court need not be hostile to the religious beliefs of the cheerleaders, I don’t believe that prohibiting the banner is oppressing religion. There are plenty of ways to encourage and support the football players without reference to God and Jesus Christ. By banning the Biblical ideas from the signs, the district and the court would merely be protecting the minority from the Establishment of religion.

            

Religious Monuments on Government Property

In Starke, Florida, a group of atheists placed monument in front of the Bradford County courthouse to express their nonbelief in God.  The bench is placed near the Ten Commandments monument on the government property.  “The bench bears quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the founder of American Atheists.  It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning” (Farrington 9).  Previously, American Atheists sued in an attempt to have the granite Ten Commandments monument removed.  The result of the mediation was that atheists were permitted to erect their own monument.  The president of American Atheists, David Silverman, comments about religious monuments on government property: “We’re not going to let them do it without a counterpoint.  If we do . . . it’s going to appear very strongly that the government actually endorses one religion over another, or -- I should say -- religion in general over non-religion.”  The main debate in this case is whether or not it is neutral to include both monuments or to just ban religious statues on government property.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment serves two main purposes: 1) forbids the government from establishing an official religion; and 2) prohibits the government from favoring  one religion over another, religion over non-religion, and non-religion over religion (however, strict separationists support favoring non-religion).  In this case, Silverman is addressing the second part of the Establishment Clause; however, because atheists are now permitted to display their bench next to the Ten Commandments on government property, one must ask if this is a neutral policy.  In 1988, the Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Allegheny v. ACLU.  In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the Allegheny County Courthouse  was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union for its holiday displays.  The display inside the courthouse depicted a nativity scene.  Outside of the building was a Hanukkah menorah and a Christmas tree.  The debate in this case was whether or not these displays violate the Establishment Clause.  The Court ruled that the nativity scene inside of the building violated the Establishment Clause, while the Hanukkah menorah and Christmas tree outside did not.  Justice O’Connor (in the majority opinion) believed that the outside decorations celebrated the religious pluralism of American culture.  The Court concluded that not all religious celebrations on government property violate the Establishment Clause.  In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Van Orden v. Perry that a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of the Texas state capitol building was constitutional.  Tradition and historical significance were the major arguments used to prove that this was not the establishment of religion.  The Supreme Court presented an interesting rationale in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum in 2008.  A park in the city had a monument of the Ten Commandments.  A religious organization known as Summum wrote to the mayor in hopes of placing a monument that was significant to their religion in one of the city’s parks; however, the mayor denied their request, claiming that the Ten Commandments were permitted for historical purposes.  The Supreme Court ruled that the government had the right to free speech and that the Ten Commandments represented the city’s views.  According to these Supreme Court decisions, the government’s right to free speech trumps that of an American citizen.  Thus, the placement of the atheist’s bench in Florida raises the issue of the government’s freedom of speech versus the freedom of speech and freedom of religion of the American Atheists.     

I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1988 that the displays outside of government buildings (but still on government property) are constitutional and do not violate the Establishment Clause.  A majority of the American people’s ancestors came to the United States for religious freedom, and our nation always promotes diversity.  Therefore, we should celebrate the religious pluralism that we have in the United States. I also agree with the Court’s ruling in Van Orden v. Perry; however, I disagree with the ruling in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.  In this case, it is evident that the Court places the government above the American people, which is not what historical American figures have intended (“government of the people, by the people, for the people” (Abraham Lincoln)).  While the Ten Commandments have a greater influence on the history and tradition of this country, I do not have a problem with the atheist’s bench.  Some claim that they are offended by religious monuments on government property; however, there is no constitutional right to not be offended.  By having two displays that represent various religions (the Ten Commandments portraying the Jews and the Christians, and the bench representing the atheists), the government is not promoting any one particular religion; rather, it is a celebration of the diverse nation that we call “The Land of the Free.”       

What do you think?  Is having monuments from various views not neutral?  Does it violate the Establishment Clause?

United States Penitentiaries, where religious freedom is in question and fish isn’t meat.

Meet Howard Cosby. Cosby is a 35-year-old man currently being housed in a facility in Uncasville, Connecticut that is refusing to provide him with vegetarian meals that would allow him to abide by his Buddhist lifestyle of nonviolence. Sounds like a simple denial of religious freedom, right? Did I mention that the aforementioned “facility” is a prison? And he is there due to no small crimes.

Howard Cosby is currently serving a 19 ½ year sentence that began in 2004 at the Corrigan-Radgowski Correctional Institution due to charges of sexual assault and “other crimes”. While at the prison, despite wishing to eat a vegetarian diet due to religious reasons, he was given fish 3 times a week. Cosby complained to the administration, to which they replied that the department does not consider fish to be meat, therefore his diet is indeed vegetarian! Cosby then proceeded to pen a letter to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) detailing his experience. PETA then wrote a letter to the warden, Scott Erfe, asking that fish be removed from his diet, citing the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. This act, which was passed in 2000, requires that prisons “avoid imposing substantial burdens on inmates’ religious exercises”. In addition, the prison’s directives require that an inmate’s diet meet certain nutritional requirements and not contain “food items forbidden by religious dogma.”

            The question as to whether fish is meat or not is something I cannot nor will attempt to answer. While answering this question will allow us to determine whether the prison’s actions clearly violate their own directives, it is ultimately a red herring, as there are other issues to consider when trying deciding if the prison should accommodate his religious practice. One such issue is something that has been mentioned in prior Supreme Court cases that we have covered, and that is the issue of sincerity. In past Supreme Court cases, United States v. Seeger and United States vs Ballard for example, the Supreme Court was not interested in assessing the merit of the belief. Rather, they only wished to assess whether the belief was sincerely held. Assessing sincerity is important, for if someone claiming to be denied religious freedom is deemed insincere, then their entire argument falls apart. Cosby’s sincerity can definitely be brought into question in this case. Cosby claims that he wishes to maintain a vegetarian diet as part of the “Buddhist lifestyle of non-violence”, yet he is in jail for sexual assault, a violent crime, and has enlisted help from PETA, an organization with a history of violence. Therefore, it seems as though the “Buddhist lifestyle of non-violence” may be of little interest to him, and that his religious validation may be a false pretense, and he is more interested in animal rights than in non-violence. However, while I do think that it is sometimes necessary to assess the sincerity of one’s religious belief, as difficult as it may be, I feel it is a “slippery slope” and that it could quickly devolve into incessant poking of holes into peoples past conduct. A question I thus have is to what degree is it ok to question someone else’s religious sincerity?

            Another issue that needs to be considered is one of safety. If the prison were to provide him a vegetarian diet, it could potentially single Cosby out, as the other inmates could view this as preferential treatment, something they may not appreciate. A visible pacifist may not be safe in a prison environment, which could therefore lead to fights that put both the staff at the prison and the inmates, including Cosby himself, in danger. Therefore, providing him with vegetarian food could pose a serious safety hazard to everyone who is at the prison.

            Whether or not this is a violation of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons act is a matter of perspective, as it depends on what constitutes “substantial burdens on inmates’ religious exercises”.  Due to these issues, I do not think that Cosby is entitled to a vegetarian diet. While denying a vegetarian meal to someone practicing a non-violent Buddhist lifestyle may be a violation of the First Amendment in itself, if Cosby does not truly have the religious beliefs in the first place, then it is a moot point. In addition, even if Cosby was thought to be sincere in his beliefs, providing him with a vegetarian meal could potentially put many people, including him, in danger. While it would be nice to provide him with vegetarian meals so he can freely practice his supposed religion, I feel that there are too many risks involved with letting that happen.

            What do you all think? Is Cosby sincere? Does it matter if he is sincere? Is my assessment of prisoner politics correct? Is fish meat? Please share your thoughts.