Religion & American Law

The school board cancels the scheduled prom rather than allow same sex dates and cross dressing. The article provides the basic details of the dispute generated by school board regulations concerning a school sponsored prom dance. The two interesting factors are the school boards decision to cancel the dance and the public stated understanding as to why they took this action.

In the years following the Brown v. School Board Supreme Court decision, many school boards and communities would take this same attempt to be ‘non-discriminatory’ by canceling activities rather than change the segregated patterns. Entire school systems were closed rather than provide integrated education. Their thoughts were that if no program was provided for anyone how could they be accused of discriminating against one segment of the population. The prom dance was an issue even after integrated school were established. In many communities the school system no longer sponsored any dances. Taking the place of school proms, and any other dance activity, parents would hold ‘private’ parties. There would be a dance for white students and maybe a separate dance for black students. Economics was a major factors and frequently no ‘black prom’ dance was organized. The interesting response in many communities where two separate dances were held was that the ‘white prom’ was closed and restricted who could attend while the ‘black prom’ was open to all students. The ‘white prom’ fell to low attendance as the white student would explain that the ‘black prom’ was more fun. From a racial civil rights point the prom issue seems to have become a non-issue. It took years of community change but rarely is racial segregation expressed as an issue in school proms.

Here we see the same tactics used to battle a discrimination case: 1) an injured party brings court action to change a discriminatory practice and the official organization responds by canceling the activity, and 2) the private community responds by providing an alternative activity. The specific details will determine court decisions, but the pattern of this response is most interesting.

The highlight of this issue is the statement at the end of the article. “Southside Baptist Church Pastor Bobby Crenshaw said he's seen the South portrayed as "backwards" on Web sites discussing the issue, "but a lot more people here have biblically based values." “ Again religion is seen as the cause of conflict between segments of society rather than a force to bring society together. Why do such people not look inward and see that something must be wrong a religion that is the source of such conflict.

Both the New York Times and NPR had stories last week about the controversial C Street Center townhouse, pictured to the left. The townhouse is located in Washington D.C. approximately three blocks from the Capitol and is host to a contingent of fundamentalist Christian members of Congress. It is affiliated with the Fellowship and provides a place for Congressmen to live and pray together for a minimal fee of $600 per month for a private room. You may remember the Fellowship from their heavy involvement in the National Prayer Breakfast, an event which every president since Dwight Eisenhower has attended. The C Street Center hosts several functions that are smaller than the National Prayer Breakfast, but serve largely the same purpose. These include Wednesday prayer breakfasts for United States Senators and Tuesday night dinners for Members of Congress and other Fellowship associates.

The C Street Center was granted tax exempt status as a church under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which states that “corporations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes” are entitled to tax exemption. Tax exempt status remained formally unchallenged until last year, when several C Street tenants were embroiled in marital infidelity scandals that focused a public eye on the Center. As a result, the Office of Tax and Revenue for Washington D.C. determined that portions of the townhouse were being rented out for private residential purposes and the exemption was partially revoked so that only 34% is now tax exempt.

Two weeks ago, a group of Ohio pastors filed a complaint about the partial tax exemption of the C Street Center. The pastors are concerned that the Center is not a church and that by masquerading as a church, the Center “poses a threat to the integrity and legitimacy of all religious organizations in the United States.” In an interview with NPR, Pastor Eric Williams, a leader of the Ohio ministers, stated, “Is there public worship? Is it open to the public? Are there trained leaders who serve the church? C Street really has none of those marks that make it a church."

This case raises constitutional issues similar to those raised by Bob Jones University versus United States in 1982. The IRS revoked Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status of Bob Jones University, a private Christian University, because it denied admission to students involved in interracial relationships. Bob Jones University challenged in court, holding that the IRS violated the University’s rights under the religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the IRS had the right to revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to established public policy.

The C Street Center case is slightly more complicated because the pastors are concerned with separation of church and state, not freedom of conscience. The Ohio pastors believe, and I agree, that the Fellowship is using the C Street Center to influence Congressmen and other public officials. If the IRS revokes Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, the C Street Center will have to file tax returns that reveal its sources of income. This will make it possible to determine whether private money from the Fellowship is being filtered into the Center. If the IRS investigation is brought to court, the C Street Center could argue freedom of conscience by claiming that the townhouse is actually a place of worship for its residents. This argument puts the state in the sticky position of defining religion, which can lead to excessive entanglement. Clearly, the C Street Center tax exemption raises a lot of constitutional issues.

A teacher at the Guthrie Center High School in Iowa was put on five-day unpaid suspension for not allowing one of his students to build a Wiccan altar. Dale Halferty is the industrial arts teacher at the high school and did not allow a senior in his class to build the Wiccan altar because Halferty felt “it's offensive to worship rocks and trees…I am just trying to be moral. I don't know how we can profess to be Christians and let this go on." Halferty feels his suspension is misguided because he was merely acting as a good Christian. Halferty is upset that the school is making him act against his Christian beliefs and for allowing students to be exposed to beliefs he feels are wrong and bad for youth. When the student told Halferty that he was a practicing Wiccan and the table he was building was actually a Wiccan altar, Halferty said he could continue with the project as long as the student kept any religious materials at home. The student then began bringing a book of witchcraft with him to class. It was then that Halferty told the student he couldn’t continue building his altar. However, Halferty claims he was not discriminating against the Wiccan religion; he said he had previously told another student he could not build a cross in his class because he firmly believes in the separation of church and state. School officials placed Halferty on suspension for violating at least one school policy, and because state and federal law prohibits the discrimination of a student’s religious beliefs in school assignments. The principal of the school has said that Halferty will be allowed to return to work and will not suffer further consequences if he allows the student to build his altar. The principal equated his decision to “it's sort of like, what if I had a biology teacher who does not want to teach evolution? If a teacher doesn't do the job to which they are assigned, they are insubordinate." If Halferty refuses to return to the classroom, the superintendent will then decide what to do, and the school board will make any decisions regarding termination of employment.

This article focuses primarily on religious expression in public schools. We have been talking a lot in class about expression of religion in state-funded schools, and this article ties in nicely because it concerns religious expression of a student, as we saw with the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. The Jehovah’s Witness students in that case were protected from having to salute the American flag due to their religious beliefs, and in this case the student’s freedom of expression rights are similarly being protected by both school policy and state and federal law. An interesting aspect to this instance is the teacher didn’t want the student to build a Wiccan altar because it conflicted with his Christian beliefs, yet he claimed to be a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. While the teacher claims to have not allowed a student to make a cross previously, it almost seems like the teacher is questioning the legitimacy of the Wiccan religion because of how it is practiced. I think that this is an inappropriate expression of religious belief on the part of the teacher. While Mr. Halferty is entitled to his opinion, he was wrong in telling the student that he could not build the altar, and is especially in the wrong because Mr. Halferty used his own religious beliefs as a reason for not allowing the project. Teachers are in positions of authority and should not use that position as a means of preaching their own personal beliefs.

I agree with the suspension of Mr. Halferty because if the school chose to stifle the religious expression of its students, regardless of creed, our schools would quickly start to resemble the purely secular system of France. This is a problem because our Constitutional ideals of religious expression and the separation of church and state are to allow the free expression of religious beliefs, not to completely stifle all religious expression.

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.