Religion & American Law

In San Francisco, the Hastings College of Law, which is part of University of California, allows over sixty recognized groups to use meeting space, bulletin boards and whatever else they please to do, as long as they follow one rule: religious discrimination is not permitted. Unfortunately, the Christian Legal Society group thought that they were exempt from this rule. The Christian Legal Society decided that nonbelievers and homosexuals are allowed to be a part of their club, however, they cannot become voting members or assume leadership positions. In addition, the Christian Legal Society’s discrimination was not only geared towards homosexuals, it was also aimed towards heterosexual men and woman who participated in sexual activity before marriage. After not being pleased with the outcome of the California court’s decision to rule against the group, the Supreme Court decided to pick up the group’s case and rule out whether or not this religious group’s standards for members is constitutional.

Hastings College shortly withdrew their recognition from the Christian group. In addition, the law school made it clear to the public that their school promotes an open membership to all student groups and all groups must accept all group members as voting members, no matter their belief. Since Hastings is a public institution it is a moral obligation to promote anti-discrimination. According to the first amendment, all institutions should require a religious freedom atmosphere, whether the school is private or public. Public schools are often known to be more diverse and more accepting to different beliefs or cultures, however, if this court case took place at a private law school the same issue would still be raised. There is no private versus public school vendetta when it comes down to religious discrimination, it would still be frowned upon by the majority at any school.

In this new era most court cases involving religious freedom are usually associated with homosexuality, which applies to a lot of people, especially in San Francisco, the unofficial gay capital of The United States. This is why I found this case to be even more interesting, it occurs in a city where almost everyone accepts homosexuality as a part of their life; if they are not gay, they probably know one or more people that are. The people in the Christianity group should realize that given the location of where they are attending school, more people are likely to be homosexual and should be accepting rather than expelling.

In addition to the Homosexuals who experienced discrimination, all people who have participated in sexual activity prior to marriage aren’t allowed to vote in the Christian group either. I have seen many discrepancies regarding sexual orientation discrimination but this is the first time I have seen discrimination involving sex prior to marriage. This is a surprise to me because college is usually known for its, lack of better terms, sex, drugs, and alcohol. Although people are supposed to go to school for education, one night stands and hookups is what college is usually associated with, especially based on movies and television shows. Law school comes after four years of college, and my guess is that unless students are very religious, most people did not wait for marriage to engage in sexual activity. Furthermore, I would assume by the time most people attend law school they would not be able to vote in the Christian group at Hastings according to their standards.

Many American households display a similar iconic photo in a widely visible spot in their home: a framed picture of their high school graduate walking across the stage in cap and gown, accepting their diploma. But for graduates of Brookfield Central and Brookfield East Public High Schools in southern Wisconsin, this proudly displayed memory contains another focal point: a 20-foot tall cross above the stage.

Brookfield’s graduation had traditionally been held in the school’s gymnasium, which was much too small and too hot for the graduating class, their families, and their guests to sit comfortably during the ceremony. In 2000, the students requested to hold the ceremony in a nearby nondenominational evangelical Christian church because the venue was much larger and more comfortable than any space the school could provide. The senior class approved the venue change by a majority vote, and the superintendant, who happened to be a member of this church, agreed to hold the graduation in the church’s huge theater, on the grounds that the church provided more space, amenities, and convenience than the school’s gym, and allowed students to invite more guests than they would have if the ceremony was held at other local, secular venues.

Students and families from the school and Americans for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit arguing that holding graduation ceremonies in a place of worship violates the Constitution and makes some attendees feel uncomfortable, and requested a court order to force the schools to find an alternate, secular venue. This week, a three-judge panel of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that as long as the graduation ceremony didn’t hold religious elements, there was no government endorsement of religion, and therefore no violation of the Religion Clause.

Walking across the stage at high school graduation to accept a diploma is considered a rite of passage in American schools, and forcing public school students in a multi-cultural and multi-religious town to choose between asking their families to sit in a mega-church to watch them accept their diploma under a giant cross or skip this momentous occasion all together is not Constitutional. The 7^th Circuit Court found that as long as the ceremony did not contain religious messages or religious pressures, no endorsement of religion was taking place. Essentially, they found that as long as religious paraphernalia was only visible and present but not explicitly mentioned, there was no problem.

But, with this ruling, there is a huge problem. This church, although large, air-conditioned, and “convenient”, is a widely accepted and extremely visibly a place of worship. Pews contained Bibles, prayers, and hymnals, and a giant cross above the stage. One student claimed that the ceremony, which did not mention any denomination or the church itself, was completely secular, and therefore an appropriate venue. But since when are courts okay with the presence of religious paraphernalia or venues for supposedly secular settings as long as they aren’t “explicitly mentioned”? Would it be okay for a schoolteacher to hold class in a room of a nearby church simply because the church’s multipurpose room, while decorated with Bible verses, was larger than the school’s? What if a Judge held Court in the Synagogue down the street because the Court was overscheduled and overcrowded? According to this Court’s reasoning all of these situations could be acceptable because no religious messages are explicitly stated or endorsed—the groups are simply using the venue out of “convenience”, with no religious intent. The consequences of allowing a public high school to hold a secular graduation in a church for convenience reasons are somewhat limited in scope, but the consequences of allowing this "convenience" excuse for violating the Religion Clause to become precedent has dangerous implications because oftentimes, secularity does require extra effort, and these standards should be upheld for future cases where a lot more is sacrificed in the name of convenience.

Verbal messages and readings, while important, are not everything—no one can claim that simply omitting religious speech makes holding a ceremony in a church non-religious. Sitting in an empty church in silence, even while no one else is present, is still a religious activity because churches are still an obvious place of worship, regardless of what the venue is being used for. What if you were planning your Muslim wedding and the Imam tried to convince you that it would make more sense to hold your ceremony at the Catholic Church down the street because it’s bigger, and air-conditioned? True, it’s not a Mosque, but don’t worry—they wouldn’t say or read anything Catholic, so no one will notice the venue at all…right?

After September 11, 2001 many found it difficult to show signs of hope, or optimism after the tragic events that had occurred earlier that day. However, during the removal of what remained of the World Trade buildings on September 13, 2001 one man, Frank Silecchia, found something that would instill faith and hope in many Americans. What he found, was two metal beams twisted into what appeared to be a cross. This cross has remained at Ground Zero for the past ten years, and if everything goes accordingly, is to be relocated in the 9/11 Memorial Museum in the near future. However, the American Atheists organization is protesting the inclusion of this religious symbol stating the necessity for “absolute separation of government and religion”. The organization claims that adding the cross to the museum is a “’repugnant’ attempt to promote religion on public land”.

This cross, has been at Ground Zero for the past ten years. It has been a symbol of hope and faith for many of those who have visited the site, whether or not they see it as a symbol of God’s existence. Now, this organization of atheists is claiming the placement of the cross within the 9/11 Memorial Museum would be unconstitutional and is an uncalled for mixture of religion and state. In their presented case, the American Atheist organization protests the inclusion of the cross unless equal space is provided for Non-Christian memorials within the museum as well.

I believe that the cross should be included in the 9/11 Memorial Museum. It is not as if it was man-made, but rather was formed naturally amidst such a tragic event. Also, while looking into this topic, I came across many quotes from those who cleaned Ground Zero, saying that they cut mini forms of this cross from the rubble at the site not because they were Christian, but rather because they felt that it gave them a purpose. It is not as if the museum would be favoring Christians, it is that no other religiously affiliated symbol was formed during the fall of the towers. The cross can be seen as a sign from God for those who choose to believe so, but it can also be seen simply as a sign of hope. It has been an important part of Ground Zero for the past ten years and should continue to represent September 11, 2001.

The American Atheist organization has a reasonable claim, but how do you represent your community that prides itself upon believing in nothing? Would all, what they see as, non-religiously affiliated parts of the museum be representing their space? This museum is about what happened on September 11, 2001 not about what people believe to be politically correct and fair to all. This metal cross was formed on September 11^th, making it a part of history. Also, it is not as if you have to walk by the cross in order to enter the museum. If you do not agree with it being a part of the memorial, do not go visit that section. I would think atheists would be more content knowing that they were not forced to see the cross seeing as it will have its own section of the museum, whereas when it is the center of Ground Zero, it is a little more difficult to ignore.