Sikh-American Army Officer Wins Ability to Serve With Beard, Turban

In a decision by a U.S. district court judge that occurred this March, a Sikh-American officer, Captain Simratpal Singh received a religious accommodation that allows him to permanently serve the military with a beard, long hair, and a turban in accordance with his faith. This December, he had received a temporary exemption from the rules, but in March, this decision was solidified.

Interestingly enough, Singh has been serving in the military for 10 years with short hair, no beard, and no turban. Furthermore, many Sikhs who have requested the military exemption at the beginning of their service were denied.

This case reminds initially reminds me of Goldman v. Weinberger. In the 1986 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that S. Simcha Goldman, an Orthodox Jew, was prohibited from wearing a yarmulke, a small cap worn by Orthodox and Conservative Jewish men. According to this decision, the prohibition was not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the first amendment due to the importance of cohesion in the military and that "the traditional outfitting of personnel in standardized uniforms encourages the subordination of personal preferences and identities in favor of the overall group mission" (297). I take issue with this argument because religion itself is not a "preference", and relegating an "identity" to preference, or something someone can simply live without erases the humanity of different religious necessities. Furthermore, the court did not provide sufficient evidence that such an exemption would prevent the people in the military from correctly doing their job or causing divisions among them. This argument fundamentally goes against Singh's case, which allowed for religious accommodation and has so far been extremely successful.

Another case that this reminds me of is United States v. Steeger. In this case, Steeger wanted to be exempt from military service and receive conscientious objector status because of his firm spiritual beliefs. In this case, the Supreme Court voted that yes, Steeger could be exempt from military service because of his beliefs, which he sufficiently proved to be sincere. This case relates back to Singh's because religious exemptions are different from other kinds of exemptions because of the relationship they have to one's identity. Although Singh went without the religious exemption for ten years, he was quoted in the article linked above, stating, "My military service continues to fulfill a lifelong dream... My faith, like many of the soldiers I work with, is an integral part of who I am. I am thankful that I no longer have to make the choice between faith and service to our nation."

I believe that religious exemptions from clothing and appearance in the military are imperative because of people like Singh. People of all religions should feel welcome to serve their country and not be boxed out by arbitrary dress codes that are not proven to affect outcome in work or morale. What do you think?

Does a WWI memorial violate the Establishment Clause?

            Religious symbols have always been a topic for dispute, not only within one religion, but also between differing religious groups. More often than not, these religious symbols will be taken by a group and made into some sort of monument or sculpture, and are often erected in order to honor a particular individual or group. This is the case in Bladensburg, Maryland, home to a World War I memorial.

            According to The Christian Post, in 1925, a memorial monument was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland in order to honor those who had fought and died during the war. The creation of this monument was the idea of survivors of the war, as well as family members of those who had died. These veterans and family members contacted the American Legion in 1919, and six years later, the monument, which is in the shape of a cross, was built. In addition, the American Legion is the largest veterans service organization within the United States. However, The American Humanist Association, an atheist group, finds the monument to be in violation of the Establishment Clause, and

thus has filed a lawsuit asking for the cross to be altered, demolished or removed.

            Now, members of the American Legion and First Liberty Institute, are attempting to protect the monument by offering reasons that the cross is not in fact a symbol of religion in this case. In fact, the CEO of First Liberty Institute points out that while the cross is widely associated with Christianity, it is not solely a symbol for this religion. Upon further research, it may be stated that the cross is also a symbol within the Pagan religion and the Wiccan religion; thus, associating this memorial to only Christianity is merely an assumption. In addition, the monument does not display any favoritism towards any one religion; there are no biblical verses, and no symbols of Christianity or any other religion. All that decorates the cross is the US emblem and the word “Valor”. Thus, it may be assumed that The American Humanist Association wishes to demolish the memorial simply because it is in the shape of a cross. The premise of this case is very similar to that of Van Orden v. Perry.

            In Van Orden v. Perry, a monument similar to the one in Bladensburg, Maryland was under scrutiny; however, where the monument in Van Orden v. Perry differs from that of Bladensburg is that it has the Ten Commandments written out on the monument in plain text, which obviously affiliates the structure with both Christianity and Judaism- thus placing favoritism of particular religions over another. However, it was the decision of the court that the monument in Van Orden v. Perry, was not in violation of the Establishment Clause, and while many disagreed with the decision within this case, it does differ from the monument in Maryland. In addition, the court in Van Orden v. Perry failed to use the Lemon Test in order to determine whether or not the monument had a secular purpose, (and it did in fact have a secular purpose). Due to the fact that it may be determined that the court failing to use the Lemon Test is unfair to both parties within Van Orden v. Perry, it may be said that using pieces of the Lemon Test to further decide on the issue in Maryland may be useful.

            First and foremost, it is quite clear that the monument in Maryland did in fact have a secular purpose; to honor the residents of Bladensburg, Maryland who had fought and died during World War I. Secondly, while the monument is in the shape of a cross, it does not merely represent Christianity, thus it is not advancing nor is it inhibiting religion. Thirdly, the monument is on government property, and as a result, does foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. However, it may be argued that The American Humanist Association is not taking into account the time period in which this structure was erected and the purpose for which is was created.

            This memorial was created in order to honor those who had fought and died for the freedom, which many Americans take for granted everyday. Being the mother, father, wife or child of one of these brave men must have been heartbreaking, and having a structure made in order to honor their ultimate sacrifice was comforting, unintended to represent one religion over another. It is also important to note that the cross is internationally recognized as a symbol honoring men who had given their lives during World War I.

            All in all, this memorial does not violate the Establishment Clause, and should not be removed or demolished.

Religious Establishment in a County Seal

Part of the Former County Seal with
Cross Over the LA Bowl

This past Thursday in Los Angeles County a group of religious leaders won a case in banning a Latin Cross from being included in the County's seal.  Los Angeles County has had a large history in deciding if a cross could or could not be included on the seal.  Back in 1957, the county created its seal with a cross over the Hollywood bowl.

Years later in 2004, the ACLU filed suit. County Supervisor Michael Antonovich supported the seal with the cross explaining that "the cross is a part of a historical fact with the founding of the County of Los Angeles, just as the Star of David on the Sheriff’s badge is a reflection of the Judaic heritage and the laws of Moses." Nevertheless the county board decided to create a new seal without the religious reference in a 3-2 vote.  It cost the county $700,000 in all to change the seal. Five years later in 2009,  county Supervisors Michael Antonovich and Don Knabe proposed adding a cross to the seal when a cross was placed on the Mission San Gabriel Archangel in downtown LA since this mission itself was featured on the seal.  The supervisors subsequently started a motion in 2013 to update the seal.  The supervisors upheld the motion in a 3-2 vote.  After this vote, local religious leaders filed suit in the case that was decided on this past Thursday.  The religious leaders believed that including the cross endorsed Christianity over other religions. They argued that this case was one regarding both freedom to practice and Establishment since the religious symbol on the county seal violated the leaders’ right to religious freedom under the Establishment Clause by endorsing a religion.  In siding with the religious leaders, U.S. District Court Judge Justice Snyder decided that “an ‘informed and reasonable’ observer ... would perceive the county's addition of the cross to the 2004 seal to constitute approval or endorsement of a particular set of religious beliefs.” Justice Snyder also noted that “federal courts have consistently held that public-interest concerns are implicated when a constitutional right has been violated because all citizens have a stake in upholding the Constitution.”  In disagreeing with Snyder's opinion, Supervisor Antonovich said "The court failed to see that the board corrected the inaccurate depiction of the San Gabriel Mission on the seal with an architecturally accurate version that featured a small cross – which of course the mission has."

Proposed Seal with Cross Above Mission 

Seal Approved in 2004 without Religious Reference

Does including a depiction of the cross to better represent the San Gabriel Mission create an establishment of religion by the County and violate everyone else's freedom to religion? Do you agree with the court's decision to keep the cross out of the seal?

In considering whether the District Court’s decision to keep the cross out of the representation of the San Gabriel Mission on the L.A. County seal was unconstitutional, there were many things I thought about.  Firstly, I agree with the court’s decision in 2004 to take the cross out of the seal because having the cross represented on the seal individually did seem to represent an establishment of religion in the County; by only including a Christian symbol, the county seems to be endorsing one religious group which certainly violates the establishment clause.  However, in this case the cross is not being represented alone but rather it is being placed on the seal as part of the San Gabriel Mission, as it is architecturally represented in actuality.  I see no problem with wanting to represent a feature on the seal more accurately.  However, Supervisor Antonovich also argued for the cross on behalf of its historical significance.  While I agree that the cross may have had historical significance in the county, as was stated in Marsh v. Chambers, “standing alone, historical patterns cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees” (253).  Unfortunately for those advocating for the cross in this case, aside from depicting the mission more accurately, no case is made beyond historical significance.  Thus, the question in this case for me is, is there an advancement to the common interest of LA in including the cross on the mission? I found that there was no major benefit to society in adding the cross aside from architectural accuracy.  However, while missing out on having the mission be represented totally accurately would not directly harm the public, including the cross could.  Firstly, by including the cross on the mission on the seal, the county seems to be focusing more on the mission’s religion significance rather than the good that it does for the county.  I think that doing so is wrong as the focus should be the good that the mission does, rather than the religion that supports it.  Secondly, changing the seal in 2004 cost the county $700,000, how much would it cost the county this time and where would that money be coming from?  In answering the first question, I imagine the cost of changing the seal would be about the same as last time, if not more because of inflation.  Also, the money to change the seal would also come out of the pockets of the tax payers, which seems unfair to those who do not support including the cross.  Both of these factors could certainly be interpreted as the L.A. County’s Establishment of religion on the seal.  Considering all these things, while I do not think that adding a cross on the San Gabriel Mission on the County seal would be infringing on anyone’s freedom to religion, I do think that doing so would be representing religion in a way that could be seen as an establishment.  Therefore, I agree with the court’s decision.  Do you?

Welcome Home Soldiers Monument

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State is an organization in Washington, D.C. that has a problem with Monroe County’s Welcome Home Soldier monument because the monument consists of many Latin crosses. The organization sent a letter ordering the county and city to “divorce itself from any connection to the privately organized and funded veteran’s park and pay back any money given in support of the monument.”

The Monroe County loaned the eight acres to a “private entity” for the memorial site under “a 28E agreement,” which states that the private entity must keep the park open to the public. Albia City approved to have 45 percent of money received from a hotel/motel tax directed toward the park, which has amounted to $11,413. Lastly, the county plans to continue using taxpayer money to maintain and improve the park.

            There are two issues need to be discussed. Is it an unconstitutional establishment of religion for the Monroe County to loan land to “private entity” that decides to display religious symbols? Does allocating 45 percent of the money received from the hotel-motel tax for maintaining and improving the park violate the Establishment Clause?

            Having the crosses the in the memorial is not a form government establishment of religion. The private party that received the government land followed the necessary protocol to get the land and had the right to the land as long as people can visit the park. In Mueller v. Allen (1983), a Minnesota law provided deductions for tuition, books, and transportation for schools that satisfied the state compulsory attendance laws, and religious schools that satisfied those laws received the funding. The Supreme Court supported this stating there was no “imprimatur of state approval,” meaning the purpose of the law was to help underfinanced schools, and religious schools should receive the benefits if they fit the criteria. In the case of Monroe County, the private group qualified to borrow the land from the government as long as they follow the protocol of having the park open to the public. How the organization chooses to design the park is not representative of the government, so the government is not endorsing Christianity if crosses are displayed.

            The government is not violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because this is a neutral policy. Any “private entity” that is able to satisfy the 28E agreement could have been able to receive the land, regardless if it was a secular or religious group. Another component to consider is that there is no coercive nature to the monument: if the crosses offend people, they can simply ignore it or go to another part of the park.

            The second issue of using 45 percent of the money from the hotel/motel tax for maintaining and improving the land is not an issue regarding the Establishment Clause. The county’s opinion on the policy should not alter if the private group has secular or religious displays. The government’s purpose of maintaining and improving the land is to have quality land, not to improve the religious displays. Indirect aid to religion should not be viewed as a violation of the Establishment clause, which is supported in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) where it states that, “a law is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.” If a law that is “neutral and of general applicability” accidentally burdens religion, then by the same logic a law that is “neutral and of general applicability” can also “incidentally” benefit religion. If the county’s policy is to maintain public land that is loaned to a private company, then they must maintain the land of the park because it would be unfair to not fund the private group solely because of the religious symbols.

            This is a controversial issue because Monroe County loaned land to a private organization that displayed religious symbols on a monument dedicated to veterans. The county allowed private groups to acquire the land if they follow agreement 28E. The private entity that received the land qualified to acquire the land, and the way the land is used is not indicative of government endorsement of religion. This highlights that this a neutral policy towards religious and secular groups because both groups had the right to the land if they fit the necessary criteria. This raises the question if the county should finance the maintenance of the land or if the private group should finance it themselves. The policy itself should be neutral; the government should not treat the private group differently if the land has religious or secular symbols on it. If their policy is to finance the maintenance of the land, it is not a government endorsement of religion because indirect aid to religion should not be viewed as endorsement.

Scholarships for Disabled Students

In 2013, a group of Oklahoma residents sued their state over a program they believed violated both the first amendment of the United States constitution and the Oklahoma constitution.  The law in question was the Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Law.  As its name would imply, this law created a scholarship program for students with disabilities that allowed them and their parents to attend the school of their choice under the premise that many private schools will be able to better meet the needs of disabled students than their public counterparts.  Parents of special needs children widely applauded the law arguing that with an average class size of over 20 students, Oklahoma’s public schools often were not prepared to meet the needs of their children.  

The scholarship program specifies that the funding is available to parents to help defray the costs of sending their children to a private institution.  It does not specify whether or not the funds can be applied to tuition at a religious school.  In practice, roughly 80% of the schools approved to receive the funds are religious and the program costs the state of Oklahoma around $1 million each year.  Opponents of the program argue that the scholarships violate the first amendment of the constitution by supporting (i.e. establishing) religion in Oklahoma.  They also argue that the program violates the Oklahoma state constitution, specifically a passage known as the no-aid clause which prohibits the use of government funding, “directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such”.  Opponents argue that the practice of diverting large sums of government money to religious schools violates this clause, and is therefore unconstitutional.  They also point out that since most of the schools approved are not specifically geared towards special needs children, the law is not serving its secular purpose.   

Proponents of the law, including many parents of special needs children argue that the law is constitution and that they should be able to access generally available state aid in the same way as the rest of the state.  They contend that, as the public schools in Oklahoma are not providing  children with the best possible learning environment, they should be able to try to find a school that better suits the unique needs of disabled children.  

I agree with proponents of the law in this case and I think that the law holds up when subjected to the Lemon Test.  The scholarship program has the secular purpose of aiding in the education of special needs children who may need more help and attention than their public school can offer.  As the program is equally available to all eligible students and families regardless of their religious beliefs and they are allowed to apply the funding to the school tuition of their choice, once again regardless of the religious affiliation of the school, this law neither furthers nor inhibits religion.  Finally, as the funding is given directly to students and their families, I do not see this an excessive entanglement issue.  

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with me and ruled that the program was constitutional in early February.  Opponents of the law plan to appeal the decision and try to move the case to federal court, so it can eventually make its way to the US Supreme Court.  In its decision the court cited a similar case from Ohio, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), where a scholarship fund that distributed aid based on financial need and allowed it to be applied to any religious or non-religious school was upheld.  This ruling is also supported by the opinion we read in class in Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, as well as Mueller v. Allen, and Mitchell v. Helms.  

What do you think? Does providing education to special needs children outweigh a potential aid to religion?

Fun Fact: Broken Arrow, the town we read about last week with the giant church water tower, is one of the major opponents of the law. 

Free to Believe, not to Act

    In 2011, Todd and Mark Wathen approached the owners of a bed and breakfast in Paxton, Illinois about hosting about hosting their wedding ceremony. The owners of the bed and breakfast were a Christian couple named Jim and Beth Walder who refused to host the wedding due to their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin. Mr. Walder is quoted as stating that, “Homosexuality is immoral and unnatural based on what the Bible says about it”. The Walders were fined fifteen thousand dollars to Todd and Mark Waten each , as well as numerous legal bills. The Walders will also be forced to be more fines if they continue to refuse to host homosexual weddings, but a statement released on their website held firm to their beliefs, “God's Word is the ultimate authority, infallible, and unchanging, consequently, we cannot host civil unions or gay marriages at Timber Creek Bed & Breakfast. It is not an issue of fairness or equality, but an issue of right and wrong. We cannot be part of what God condemns.”

    After same sex marriage became legal in the United States, issues similar to this one became commonplace. Businesses and individuals were refusing serve homosexual marriages, such as a Colorado court case where the court ruled against a baker who tried to cite religious belief as reason for not serving a gay couple. Comparisons have been made to the Civil Right’s era, that the backlash against homosexual couples is similar to the difficulties that African-Americans had in having use of the rights, even after being legally allowed them, due to discrimination. The problem with the comparison is that the homosexual marriage issue is inherently more religious. People cited religious reasons for disliking black people, but it was mainly a discrimination and seeing black people as inferior issue. To be sure, there are people who discriminate against homosexuals without religious reasons, but there are multiple religious texts that forbid same sex relationships. The Bible and the Quran both see homosexuality as something unnatural. 

    Dealing with an issue so religious means any laws establishing rights for homosexual couples, also has to deal with the freedom of religion clause and how citizens have the right to refuse homosexuals based on their religion. Comments on this story involved examples of both sides of the supporters of the issue, with some commenters saying how terrible people are that would refuse gay couples and others saying how evil homosexuals are due to their sin. Religious issues are much harder to deal with because they go beyond what your opinions are, to what your belief involves. There are many christians and muslims who support gay marriage, but there are also many against the issue. The main issue involving the Walders and other cases like theres is do your religious beliefs defend against criminal action. 

    Religion and law in the United States are heavily mixed, even with the separation of Church and State. When there is a competing governing set of rules to the laws of the land, the secular laws will not be able to govern as effectively. This can be seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where sharia law is used along with their secular laws. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, homosexuality can be punished with death based on their interpretations of Islamic law. The religious and secular laws are so intertwined in those countries that a secular law accepting homosexuality would currently be next to impossible to achieve. In the United States, there is an insistence that we have a separation of Church and State while political candidates constantly reference their faith as reasons for supporting or not supporting different legislations. 

    If Church and State are separated, then religious belief cannot serve as a defense for criminal indictment. I personally disagree with the Walder’s opinion that being a Christian means that they have to be against gay marriage, but I do not think that they are terrible people for believing it. The Walders are welcome to their beliefs, but the act of refusing to serve a homosexual couple based upon their sexuality is illegal and should be punished as such. If there were not laws in place to prevent this discrimination, then I would advocate for those types of laws to be created, but I would not believe that the Walders should be punished in any legal capacity. Secular laws cannot work if they are being undermined by 20 different sets of religious laws. 

Free Exercise or Unconstitutional Establishment of Faith?

On Tuesday, May 22nd, ISIS claimed responsibility for the organized attacks in Brussels, Belgium. Two explosions took place at the capital's airport and one explosion at a metro station, resulting in 31 people dead and 270 people injured. It was confirmed that two of the bombers were brothers and the other bomber was a suspect in the coordinated terrorist attacks that occurred in Paris last November. ISIS also claimed responsibility for those attacks, which left 130 people dead. In response to the massacres in Brussels, the township supervisor of Shelby, Michigan, Rick Stathakis, posted a short prayer and two verses from the Old Testament of the Bible to serve as a few words of consolation to those who survived the ruthless attacks that day and to everyone else that was affected by them. Specifically, he posted to his personal Facebook page the following quote from Psalm 46:1-2, "God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble. Therefore, we will not fear, though the Earth gives way and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea..." In addition to this, he posted a short prayer that read, "Mighty God, shine your radiance into every corner of this dark and fallen world. Send your angel armies into Brussels, and heal the land. Hear the prayers of those who call to you, calm them with Your peace, and soothe the souls of those who lost loved ones in this attack. Amen."

Although Stathakis' intent was simply to provide comforting words and a gesture of support to grieving families and individuals, many people took offense to his post on his public social media page. The critics claimed that because the Shelby Township Supervisor was indeed a government official, the blatantly religious speech was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. One critic, Rafael Saakyan claimed that when one is a government official, it is unconstitutional to promote the advancement of faith in any way, shape, or form. Therefore, Stathakis' words were an obvious violation of the fundamental legal principles of our country. The short prayer and Bible verses that were intended to wish peace and comfort to those who suffered from the massacres, were actually an insult to many. Saakyan alleged that the Shelby Township Supervisor's post was also "highly offensive to his constituents." As a result, Stathakis' religious beliefs should be kept to himself and not in any way interfere with the United States government. Another critic even claimed that Stathakis should only be permitted to keep his prayers between himself and God. While Stathakis' social media post did ignite a great deal of criticism, it also brought in a lot of praise for him staying strong in his faith. One commenter on Facebook wrote, "I praise God for such committed leaders who lead our community with conviction for their faith. The day we can't pray for those who are in dire need is a sad day around the world. God bless you." Another supporter commented on Stathakis' post saying that it is wrong that President Obama can close every speech with, "God Bless America," yet another public official that represents the government is not allowed to post prayers to his personal social media page. Stathakis has not deleted his post and continues to wholeheartedly defend it, asserting that he will continue to exercise his freedom of religion. 

After learning about both sides of the argument, do you believe that the Shelby Township Supervisor is exercising his freedom of religion guaranteed by the United States Constitution or does his post serve as the unconstitutional establishment of religion? I do not believe that Stathakis' action online was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because he posted to his personal social media page titled, Rich Stathakis - Shelby Township Supervisor. Under his page information is listed his political affiliation, biography, political views, relationship status, work, education, gender, contact information, and religious views. Even though this page can be accessed by anyone because it is not set to private, it is only representative of him as an individual. Therefore, regardless of his career as a government official, he has every right to exercise his freedom of religion like everyone else does. On the other hand, if this Facebook page was specifically made for the town of Shelby, Michigan, and Stathakis was in charge of updating it with posts, then posting the short prayer and two Bible verses would have not been appropriate but rather unconstitutional. In that case, the government would have been clearly promoting the endorsement of faith and thus, failing to maintain the separation between church and state. Furthermore, not only is Stathakis' post completely constitutional, the claim that it is deeply offensive to those who were affected by the attacks in Brussels and to all other constituents is invalid. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that one has the right to not be offended. The United States is characterized by a diversity of religious beliefs and practices, and it is crucial for us to refrain from discriminating against others who follow a different religious faith. Religious tolerance means valuing the freedom of another person to hold beliefs that you know are absolutely wrong. Therefore, instead of taking deep offense to other peoples 's deeply held religious beliefs, we should practice tolerance and understanding. Critics to Stathakis' post should focus on the government official's genuine intent, not the actual content of his post. 

Holy Water in Broken Arrow

When driving down the Broken Arrow Expressway through Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, it is hard to miss the giant city-owned water tower that sits adjacent to the expressway. This immense one-million gallon water tower looms over the expressway, bearing the words "First Baptist Church Broken Arrow". The label was put on the water tower as a deal between the First Baptist Church Broken Arrow and the City of Broken Arrow. The criteria of the deal reached between the two was that if the church donated the land to the City of Broken Arrow, then the city would, in return, paint the name of the First Baptist Church Broken Arrow onto the water tower as acknowledgment of the church's generous donation to the city. A pastor of the First Baptist Church Broken Arrow claimed that the deal was a fair trade because "...this deal provided water for the community and water for our church and water for a whole new area of the city to develop,". However, not everyone viewed this donation with such esteem.

Citizen Andrew Seidel, along with the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), sent a letter to the City of Broken Arrow, requesting that the label be taken off of the water tower. Seidel and the FFRF believe that since the church donated the land to the city, that the land and water tower are now government property and there should not be religious advertisements on government owned property. Seidel believes that the sign on the government owned water tower is clearly a violation of the First Amendment because the city is promoting the Baptist religion. Seidel argues that, "the government can't promote one religion or church over another, or religion over non-religion,".

Despite these accusations, the city of Broken Arrow declined Seidel and FFRF's request to have the sign taken off of the water tower. City attorney, Beth Anne Wilkening, stated that the sign on the water tower, "wasn't intended to endorse any sort of religion; it was simply to recognize [the First Baptist Church Broken Arrow] for the land contribution. It was a contract". Is Seidel right, and the sign on the Broken Arrow water tower an expression of government endorsement of religion? Or is the sign a purely neutral form of acknowledgment for the donation that the church contributed to the city?


I find myself siding with Seidel and the FFRF when it comes to this case. I understand that the only reason the sign is on the water tower is because the church donated the land for the water tower, and they requested that they receive recognition for their donation by having their name be put onto the water tower. However, I feel that the city should not have agreed to the terms of this donation. The city could have placed a plaque on the water tower that would acknowledge the donation given by the First Baptist Church Broken Arrow. The colossal sign on the water tower that is clearly visible from the expressway acts almost like a billboard advertising the Baptist Church. I agree with Seidel's statement that the state cannot promote one religion over another or promote religion over non-religion. By allowing the sign to stay on the water tower, without making any attempts to renegotiate the original terms of the deal with Baptist Church, I believe that the city of Broken Arrow is favoring the First Baptist Church of Broken Arrow over non-religion as well as other religions present within the city.

Opening societal debate through the free exercise right

In a school district located in Colorado, religious groups are authorized to distribute literature on campuses, mostly to middle school and high school students. This way, a Christian group regularly hands out Gideon Bibles to students during school hours, on school premises. As a response to this current state of things, the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation), the Satanic Temple (that I previously presented in my first article) and a local association of atheists tried to distribute their own religious literature to students. However, the school district opposed their right to distribute their own religious literature, and this resulted in a lawsuit conducted by the FFRF against the school district, which the group won. Thus, the school district now has to unable the distribution, which will proceed today, on the 1^st of April [time of writing]. It is true that contrary to the first case I studied, in this one, the political dimension is much more explicit. The FFRF describes itself as a lobby group which promotes political dialogue independent of religion, that is to say the group defends a separationist point of view on the First Amendment. In the case of the Colorado school district, I do believe that the FFRF, the Satanic Temple and the atheistic association gathered so to be a powerful enough counterweight to Christian associations like Focus on the Family later in Court: the Satanic Temple to represent religious interests and the atheistic association more specifically to represent local interests, and the FFRF as a way to have greater means of action. As a matter of fact, this combination seemed to work, for they won the lawsuit, for which the school district had to pay fees of $90,000.

The comments made after the lawsuit by a Focus on the Family representative, Candi Cushman, illustrate why the fact the school district tried to block the atheistic and Satanist literature to be distributed was an infringement of the free exercise clause. First of all, she argues that “common-sense standards of decency should apply to these [books]”. I do see what she is trying to say, but terms like “common-sense” and “decency” just do not have any place in judiciary cases about religion, except of course when sexual content or something that directly promotes and/or causes physical harm is in question, but this is not the case here. The main problem with that declaration is that it presupposes the idea that some religions are to be considered as “good ones” by the government, and some others as “bad ones”, or “evil ones”. Nonetheless, again, this is just not in concordance with the First Amendment, regardless of what kind of point of view – accommodationist or separationist – you believe is the best: the government must be blind to the components of religious beliefs, except of course, once again, if those concretely physically harm anyone in any manner. The second declaration made by Candi Cushman quoted in the article that I would like to analyze is the following: “From the images displayed on recent television reports on this story, it appears that some of the materials may be disparaging of other religious viewpoints and even lewd in their depictions.” This declaration is theoretically right: it is true that atheism and Satanism are indeed religious beliefs that by nature go against mainstream theistic religions. But the fact that those beliefs appear as hateful is not enough on a legal level to dismiss the free exercise right that comes with them. Some aspects of mainstream religions do appear like signs of hatred to other religions and/or to non-religious people, and still they are most of the time tolerated by the law.

However, this case does go further on religious freedom than the first one I approached. Candi Cushman continues her comments on the case by saying that “[s]he contends that the God’s Truth will ultimately win against Satan’s lies.” That is to say she recognizes the right of the atheistic and Satanist religious groups to distribute their literature, for she believes on a spiritual level that the “truth” will prevail. From a constitutional perspective, this is perfectly fine: this woman is free to believe what she wants to, and the fight between atheism and Satanism on the one side and Christianity on the other side is actually also free to take place from a constitutional perspective, as long as it stays out of the legal framework and that it is not up to the government to designate a “victor”. This debate between the various religious groups initiated by the atheistic and Satanist associations actually created a new conversation among the school district officials, for they now consider regulating the distribution of literature to young students. They are considering restricting certain contents that “promot[e] hostility or violence, commercial purposes by advertising a product, interfer[e] with the schools, promot[e] candidacy in an election or [are] obscene or pornographic”. Of course, it is yet difficult to know what will exactly be regulated, but I think this is a healthy conversation to engage into, because it concerns young students. I do believe that this is particularly beneficial to society that this case did not end in the judiciary system choosing one side or the other but rather granting the free exercise right to all, and that it pushed officials to think about what consequences certain types of literature can have on young people. What is your stand on the case? Do you think that the Court should have stopped the distribution of the anti-religious literature?

Not Just Bibles in Backpacks...

Last week, schools in Delta County, Colorado agreed to have atheist and satanic literature distributed in their high schools and middle schools starting April 1^st of this year. Many of the district’s parents are extremely upset about this matter. The materials will not be actively distributed, but placed on a table in the school library where students can access it if they choose. The atheist and satanic materials are said to include  works entitled “What’s Wrong with the Ten Commandments?”, “Top 10 Public School State-Church Violations and How to Stop Them,” and “The Satanic Big Book of Activities.”

While this may seem like a surprising situation, the motivation behind the placement of the satanic and atheist literature in the school is very important. The initiative for the placement of the materials comes from groups like The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FRF) and Western Colorado Atheists and Freethinkers (WCAF). These groups are mainly acting in response to the fact that Gideon Bibles were distributed in the Delta School district in December 2015. A student supposedly complained about the presence of the Bibles and these organizations are looking to get their materials distributed in response.

 The distribution of all these materials is part of the schools “open forum” policy on non-curricular materials that are distributed in the school. The school argues that their policy directly reads that they cannot discriminate between any groups that distribute materials in their schools. The school district feels that if they are going to have information available from non-religious organizations like the Boy Scouts, then all information should be equally available to students. The only exceptions the school policy makes are for materials that promote violence or hostility, are commercial advertisements, contain obscenity or are pornographic, and promote candidates during an election. In their quest to get atheist and satanic literature distributed, the FRF and WCAF are really looking to push for a change in the schools policy that will result in a stricter separation of church and state. They see the distribution of the bibles as a breach of the separation between church and state and are using their materials to bring light to the issue.

The underlying issue in this case is whether or not the presence of these materials in public schools violates the separation of church and state that is created by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The FRF and WCAF see the presence of religious material like the Gideon Bibles in a public school as a violation of the First Amendment. However, the school policy on distributing information is constructed like an open forum, so it is constructed in a manner that is neutral between religion and non-religion. The purpose of the policy is to provide students with diverse viewpoints and provide them with beneficial information, not necessarily to advance religion. Therefore, the two main questions raised by this case are: Does the presence of non-curricular religious materials in a public school district violate the Establishment clause of the first amendment and breach the separation of church and state? Or, is the school required to treat religious and non-religious materials equally in order to maintain neutrality between religion and non-religion?

Following the holdings in cases like Widmar v. Vincent and Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, the ideas of equal access for religious and non-religious groups and the secular purpose of providing students with information would suggest that allowing religious materials, and in turn atheist and satanic literature, in the schools is not unconstitutional. The material is not actually handed out by schools officials nor is it created or endorsed by the school. The material is placed in the school by private groups and therefore is a form of private speech endorsing those viewpoints, not the school or government speech endorsing religion . Additionally, students are not coerced to engage with the material in any way, but rather it is simply made available to them if they wish to be informed on it. The school policy on non-curricular materials is constructed to treat religion and non-religion the same, which satisfies the neutrality principle that is so often invoked in First Amendment cases. This also means that if the Gideon Bibles can be distributed, the satanic and atheistic literature should be as well. Changing the school policy to prohibit either types of these non-curricular materials from being distributed in the school would not be a neutral act. In order to stay neutral between religion and non-religion, the school policy must treat the material from all outside groups the same.

What do you think? Should all private groups be able to distribute non-curricular information in public schools? Or does the potential for religious information to be distributed constitute a threat to the establishment clause of the first amendment?