Religion & American Law

A recent article from the NY Times describes the attempts of conservative religious groups to change educational standards in various states across the country. Conservative Evangelical groups argue that the current public school curriculum does not offer fair alternatives to the ‘theories’ of evolution and climate change. The logic behind this argument is that both evolution and climate change are only theories and not fact. Conservative groups originally attempted to have alternative theories to evolution taught in school. However, the only current alternative to evolution would involve teaching creationism. The idea of teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools is strongly rejected by many individuals in the United States. These groups argue that the teaching of any form of religion as an alternative to evolution would clearly breach the wall of separation between Church and State. This thought process was substantiated by a district court in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2005, the district court ruled that it was unconstitutional to place warning stickers inside textbooks stating that evolution was merely a theory. The court ruled that the stickers were a direct implementation of religious beliefs into the public schools and thus a breach of the First Amendment. To see the full court ruling click here.



Recently however, conservative groups have been attempting to package together both evolution and climate change in an attempt to change educational standards. By coupling both of these topics, these groups hope to bypass the issue of separation and focus solely on ‘educational fairness.’ They argue that scientists have perpetually been overstepping their “scientific right” by asserting what many believe is mere theory, as fact to the youth of our nation. Scientists in turn see the issue in a different light. For them, there is no viable alternative theory to either evolution or global warming. The only alternative teaching mechanism would involve creationism. The two main issues that I believe need to be discussed before determining whether it is appropriate to change the public school curriculum involve the separation of Church and State and the establishment of religion. Both of these First Amendment issues are paramount in this case.

The separation of Church and State is the primary issue at the heart of the debate over whether it is appropriate to teach alternative theories of evolution and climate change in public schools. Because these alternative theories would involve some form of divine intervention, it appears that teaching them would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. I believe that it is not appropriate to teach any form of creationism in a public school setting. In my opinion, the argument that climate change is solely an issue of ‘educational fairness,’ is not true. First, the addition of climate change is simply a way of sidestepping the issue of separation. By teaching alternative theories of both climate change and evolution, right wing groups can argue that religion is not the determining factor for implementing an educational curriculum change. However, even if alternative theories to climate change were taught, I don’t think that this should have any effect on the teaching of evolution. The only alternative theory to evolution currently available is creationism. Thus, religion would be inherently forced into the schools. I do not believe that it is logically valid to suggest that the addition of climate change to the debate infers that there are no religious implications to changing the current school curriculum to include creationism.

Secondly, I do not agree that it is clear that the conservative right’s rejection of climate change does not have some religious roots. Many Evangelical Christians assert that because God created the Earth, it is ignorant to assume that humans could ever destroy it. This viewpoint clearly shows some individuals’ beliefs that religion should be a basis for what is taught in public schools. Because many of the “alternative theories” that have been proposed by the conservative right involve some form of religious belief, I believe that any change to the public school curriculum along these lines would violate the First Amendment ideal of the separation of Church and State.

Another issue that I argue is prevalent in this case involves the Establishment Clause. Although this topic is not overtly asserted in the article, it is still a prevalent problem in this case. If the Texas Board of Education were to allow some form of divine intervention to be taught in public schools, it would inherently favor the Christian tradition. A particularly relevant case to this issue is Epperson v Arkansas. The case states that, although the mention of creationism is not illegal, a specific form of religion should not be a part of the public school curriculum. Allowing this would conflict with the majority ruling in Epperson v Arkansas. Because Evangelical Christian groups are the main propellant behind this debate, I do not think it is a far stretch to assume that they would not be in favor of allowing all forms of creationism to be taught. Instead, these groups would rely on the traditional Christian beliefs concerning creationism. This rejection of other religious teachings in the public schools could be viewed as an establishment of the Christian religion in the United States. Both arguments concerning the separation and establishment of religion are why I believe that it is unacceptable to allow any form of creationism to be taught, in a public school setting, as an alternative theory to evolution, climate change, or any other scientific theory.

Last week a federal judge ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the Indian River School Board to begin its meetings with a Christian prayer. The ruling was made by District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr., who threw out the lawsuit brought by two Jewish families, "Jane and John Doe" and Mona and Marco Dobrich, against the Sussex County School district. The plaintiffs sued the district, claiming that the school board, by praying before meetings, violated the constitutional separation of church and state. In his ruling Judge Farman stated that because the elected school board is closer to a legislative body than a school, their prayer is indeed permissible.

The separation of Church and State is an interesting idea to think about. While the first amendment outlines our right to exercise religion freely and restricts the state from establishing an official church, there have been countless instances where these ideals have been questioned. One issue that we have discussed recently in class is the state’s ability to intervene in religious affairs – i.e. determining the validity or sincerity of one’s religious beliefs, or taking action when those beliefs conflict with civil law. These are some of the issues I wish to discuss in this post.

In her article, posted on thedailybeast.com, Asra Q. Nomani tells of the recent controversy in a Washington D.C. mosque that has gained some public notoriety and a national following. She explains that a few weekends ago, Fatima Thompson and a number of other women defiantly prayed in the male-only section of The Islamic Center of Washington even though this practice went against many age-old gender rules of the Islamic faith. Normally, women are sequestered to an area apart from the men when praying, which is notoriously known as “The Penalty Box” to a growing number of Muslim women So, when a mosque official scolded the women and told them to move, they remained there in protest, as Nomani compared to the efforts of Rosa Parks during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Eventually the mosque called the police, and Officer Barry Goodman told the women they must leave. An excerpt from Nomani’s article sheds light on the Officer’s interaction with the women. The article reads:

‘“I’m not a Muslim. I’m just here to do my job” he said politely. “Ladies, this is how it works. You have to obey the rules of the church here… I’m sorry. The church or temple. However you want to call it. You have to obey the rules.” He continued: “If they ask you to leave. You have to leave.” Failure to leave, he pointed out, would be grounds for arrest for unlawful entry. He said: “I don’t want to do that.”’

I think that this situation raises a number of important questions pertaining to free exercise and state intervention. First, the fact that a church or mosque (or pretty much any other organization for that matter) can no longer discriminate against anyone because of their race, color, religious beliefs, and so on. Yet, within the confines of their religious sphere, these mosques are still allowed to shun women to a segregated area to pray because of gender-based religious precedents. So, here we have the question as to whether religious principles can overrule civil laws. I think this is a difficult question to answer, as there are a few different dynamics to think about. In contrast to some other situations where one’s free exercise of religion has been violated by a group or party (private or state) on the basis of their religious beliefs (i.e. Religious groups discriminating when choosing their leaders, Polygamy laws, etc.), this involves violations on the free exercise of religion for these women by their religious group itself. Is that okay? These women are being discriminated against by not being afforded the same (gender) rights, but also by not being able to pray how they wish. Some may say that this is a private religious organization that should be able to make their own rules, decide who takes on a leadership role, and who sits where when they pray. I am honestly not sure where I stand on this issue. Women’s rights within the Islamic faith have been a hot-button issue around the world, particularly in certain areas of the Middle East where women are clearly not viewed as equals to men. In the United States, however, these practices are illegal. I know that this may be more of a gender issue than a religious one on the surface, but I submit that this gender discrimination leads to a violation of their free exercise. The question now moves from whether these practices are a violation of the women’s rights to pray freely to what can be done by the state?

Our nation-wide recession has hit each community to a different degree, but Colorado Springs, Colorado has suffering more than most. I read this article a few weeks ago, detailing how many city services thought to be vital by most citizens are being defunded. Colorado Springs is losing many of its streetlights, policemen and firefighters, and the upkeep of public parks. This is a very sad and scary situation for the people of Colorado Springs, but it wasn’t until I read this article that one reason Colorado Springs has been hit so hard became apparent.

As the second article details, there are over 100 “right-wing Christian organizations” in Colorado Springs. It has an obvious bias against these organizations, and does not specify how many, if any, non-Christian or ‘left-wing’ Christian organizations there may be in the city. However, since religious organizations are given tax-exempt status in America, the large number of religious organizations in the city have contributed to its lack of funding available since they are not paying what some might call ‘their fair share’ of taxes.

This recession has thrust into the forefront an issue few people really even know about—tax exemption for religious organizations. All non-profit organizations are permitted to receive tax-exempt status from the government, so they do not have to pay federal income tax and, on a state-by-state basis, can be exempt from sales tax, property tax, and local income taxes. Most religious organizations, as long as they do not involve themselves in political elections, are non-profit organizations and thus granted this tax-exempt status.

This is not simply the government excluding charitable donations and the like from being subject to taxes—a church’s soup kitchen is exempt, but so is a fun pizza party for its members. There is a strong argument for religious organizations’ continued existence as tax-exempt entities—they are non-profit organizations, generally dedicated to improving the spiritual well-being of their members and helping the local community. Our government recognizes the usefulness of all types of non-profits, and this tax exemption can be viewed as either removing the burden of paying taxes from all of these groups, or favoring these groups, including religious organizations, over the rest of the population.

It was hard to discern my own opinion on the subject, but I think that in the end I have to come down on the side of the religious organizations. As long as these entities are following the government’s rules for non-profit organizations, they deserve to have the state’s burden of taxes lifted when other organizations with a secular purpose are treated in that way. This also helps to avoid a perception of an establishment of religion, since secular and religious organizations are held to the same standards for tax exemption. I think that as long as any type of organization meeting the guidelines for a non-profit organization is granted tax-exempt status, without regard to its religious affiliation, the exemption is constitutional. And in fact, granting tax exemption to secular non-profits and not religious ones is really an unfair burden on religion and probably unconstitutional itself.

However, in this case Colorado Springs and the State of Colorado may want to reexamine their tax exemptions for all non-profit organizations. They can revise the tax laws to lessen the exemptions across the board, since it seems obvious that the city needs to be taking in more tax revenues and the large number of non-profit organizations there are not helping their economic woes.

In this article about the starvation of a boy, a "christian" cult goes to trial.



In early 2007 or late 2006 The leader of the cult '1 Mind Ministry' ordered the followers to disallow a child to eat until the child said amen before he ate.

According to the cults belief system, this was completely ethical. What is interesting is that they are being persecuted for their values and decisions based on religious convictions. Regardless of the first amendment right which values individual religious beliefs.

The US government is pushing its ethical system on this cult. Why should the cult follow the ethics set by the governing power? Are these ethics based on the ethics of a certain religion? If so, is this really freedom of religion?

These are all questions that have been asked, answered, re-asked, and re-answered. It seems as if there is no set judgment as to what is or is not allowed when religion is involved.

The case is becoming old, but the trial is just starting. The mom, who pled guilty to child abuse resulting in death. She plans on testifying against the leaders of the cult whom she says, ' are the real criminals'. The defendants in the case hold that there ways are truth and that they are not guilty quoting, "The truth shall set you free"

Regardless of our own ethical beliefs, should we limit the rights of religious groups when their rituals contradict basic human understanding of right and wrong? What is interesting is that if the cult were to convince a majority that this was an acceptable punishment for the action, then this would be a common understanding of truth. As with the Mayans, when human sacrifice became a culturally accepted necessity. Or, with the Germans and genecide of un-clean peoples that "ruined" society. These could be considered cults as well.

Yes, they were persecuted for their actions. Let us think about this though, America has 'gotten away with' many things that common ethical beliefs would shun. Two well known instances are African American civil rights and slavery, and also the near eradication of Native Americans and their cultures.

These were not religious movements, but they were still based of common ethical values set by religious beliefs and fear of 'death'. Fear of a higher power than ones own self, like death and God, can move a person to do irrational and even 'unethical' actions.

Overall question is, What is right and what is wrong? Who are we to decide?

In November 2009, Joseph Reyes, the defiant ex-husband of Rebecca Reyes, baptized their three-year-old daughter into the Catholic Church without the mother's knowledge. During the beginning period of their marriage, Rebecca argues that Joseph promised to raise their daughter in the Jewish faith. Upon finding out that the daughter had been baptized in the Catholic Church, Rebecca decided to take the insubordinate father to court. On February 16, 2010, the Chicago Tribune published this article "Divorcing Couple War Over Child's Religion" in which explains the proceedings of the above story.
Surprisingly once the case ended up in the courts Judge Edward Jordan, of the Cook County Circuit Court, made the decsion to temporarily restrain Joseph from allowing the child to attend any religious services other than those of the Jewish faith. Joseph Reyes, who is attending John Marshall Law School, with cameras and a television news crew, defied the orders and took his child to a Catholic Mass.
With contempt allegations now on the table, Joseph Reyes acquired Joel Brodsky, of the Drew Peterson case, who than argued that "every parent has a right to take their child to their place of worship as long as it is not a harm to the child." Rebecca Reyes' side argued that since the child attends a Jewish pre-school, she would "suffer confusion to her emotional detriment" with the simultaneous attendance in the Catholic and Jewish faith. Her lawyers argued that Joseph's actions were "malicious" and in retaliation to the divorce, specifically since he had previously promised to raise their daughter Jewish even after he himself was converted to Judaism.
In 1776, there was a movement in Virginia for the General Assessment Bill in which would allow tax money to support teachers of the Protestant Church. It was through this battle and others like it in which Madison's and Jefferson's arguments lead to the wording of the First Amendment as it is today. Court case after court case has referred to their words in their deliberations. In fact, the term "wall of separation" quoted from Jefferson was first used in jurisprudence of the Reynolds v. United States case, which was concerned with the Mormons and polygamy. This case can be seen as one of the first cases in which the courts entered the discussion of what the First Amendment means, from which the courts acknowledged the "wall of separation" except for in those matters which could be harmful to society as a whole, in the case of polygamy.
Reynolds v. United States I feel could be used as an example for the situation of the Reyes couple. What I mean by this is as was deliberated in the Reynolds v. United States case concerning religious rights, two questions come to mind. First, does allowing the three-year-old girl to attend Catholic services with her father cause harm to society? I think the easy answer to that question is it does not. Secondly, is there harm being caused to the daughter? I grant that one could argue for psychological harm, however, as some in the case have stated, like Carlton Marcyan, a divorce specialist, "a three-year-old is not going to know whether she is at a Catholic Church or a synagogue." I also grant that this could be argued; however, the psychological capacity of a three-year-old is very limited. From this I would argue that harm in this specific situation is not a valid argument.
With that said, this leads me into my main point, which is the wall of separation in which Jefferson and Madison were so concerned with. As parents, each have the right to take their child to the place of worship of their choice. Madison argues this is a natural right and can only be dictated by one's own conscience. Thus, despite promises made, both Rebecca and Joseph have the natural right under the above premise to teach their daughter religiously as they see fit, which from the courts deliberations would mean that Judge Edward Jordan decision to bar Joseph from taking his daughter to Mass was not Constitutional. To me, I am actually surprised such a case was even entertained. I grant I am not a lawyer or a judge, but if I were I personally would have never even allowed the case to enter the courts in the first place.

There can be no doubt that the relationship between religion and government has presented a persistent question for Americans throughout our history. The problem has revolved around mutual concerns of influence: that of the government imposing limits upon a religious institution (or institutions) and that of a religious institution (or institutions) manipulating the government for its own ends. A recent article released on Pew Forum (here)concerning the religious views of members of the Millennial generation, those “born after 1980”, who “began to come of age around the year 2000”, raises an interesting question for the future of the separation debate. Does the separation of religion and government remain a problem for a country that is less affiliated with institutionalized religions?

The article, which is based on data from a number of different surveys, states that “Millennials are significantly more unaffiliated than members of Generation X…and twice as unaffiliated as Baby Boomers were as young adults.” While this rise in unaffiliated young adults certainly does not necessarily mean the demise of institutionalized religions, it does point to the possibility of a less religiously affiliated society in America’s near future. For better or worse, people raised within institutionalized religious traditions often base their decisions and actions on the ethical and moral principles taught by these institutions. For unaffiliated people, the question arises of which influences shape their moral/ethical codes.

While some may fear that lack of institutionalized moral education entails a lack of moral discretion, the article shows that this does not seem to be the case with the Millennial generation. The article claims that while Millennials participate less in religious institutions, they “remain fairly traditional in their religious beliefs.” What is of particular interest is Millennials’ view of the relationship between religion and government. The article notes that Millennials are “slightly more supportive…of government efforts to protect morality, as well as somewhat more comfortable with involvement in politics by churches and other houses of worship.” Again, one must wonder: what has informed these religious beliefs?

While it is likely that many members of the Millennial generation were in fact educated within institutional traditions, there is one other influence that should be considered. Millennials constitute the first generation to be significantly influenced by “new media”, a term indicating media and communication that is electronic, digital, computerized or networked. With the emergence of new media, access to multi-cultural and multi-religious modes of thought has become more available. It is reasonable to assume that Millennials’ religious and moral beliefs have been influenced, at least in part, by interaction with new media. This might explain why Millennials are more accepting of churches and houses of worship taking part in political issues because increased exposure to multiple religious views and institutions can lead to a more balanced view of these institutions’ power. Millennials seem to hold the view that as long as many different institutions are represented, their involvement in political affairs is of little concern. If this trend of unaffiliated youth continues, it is possible that the debate over separation may take a new direction or fall away completely. However, a new debate may need to be raised.

As I am sure anyone would agree, people informed by different media sources, for instance Fox News vs. the Daily Show (yes, those are comparable news sources), will have very different formative ideas—including religious and moral ideas. If moral, ethical and religious ideas are going to be informed by media sources rather than religious institutions in the future, it seems that a new concern over the separation of media and state is on the rise.