Religion & American Law

In 1963, the first graduating class of Cranston High School West presented murals of the school creed and prayer to the school, which remains on display in the school auditorium. Jessica Ahlquist, a junior at Cranston, is suing the city for removal of the mural, on grounds that it’s offensive to non-Christians.

The lawyer defending the city, Joseph Cavanagh Jr, claims that the prayer, which begins with “Our Heavenly Father” and ends with “Amen”, does not force religion on anyone, and serves solely as a “historical document as a tradition of the school”. The prayer “encourages students to strive academically” and, as Cavanagh claims, serves no religious purpose.

Ahlquist’s lawyer, Lynette Labinger, disagrees with Cavanagh’s comparison of the prayer to the Pledge of Allegiance, arguing that this is explicitly religious communication.

The display of this prayer mural in a public high school clearly violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. In Engel v. Vitale (1961) the Court found it unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in schools. While Cranston West is not requiring the recitation of this prayer, the mural is prominantly displayed in the school auditorium, and is labelled “School Prayer”. In Engel v Vitale, the Court found that the school’s promotion of a religion, even if its recitation is voluntary, constitutes a violation, and that the vague wording of the religious aspects of the prayer is not a sufficient defense.

Cavanagh claims that the prayer in question is displayed in a secular setting, not a religious one, and that the mural serves no religious purpose. However, this claim about the “secular setting”, a public high school, gives more support for removing the mural than allowing it to remain. The context of the religious display does not make its presence more appropriate, it does just the opposite-- displaying a large religious artifact in a school instead of a Church doesn’t make it secular, it makes it inappropriate.

Additionally, the contents of the prayer in question can in no way be considered secular. While some of the prayer includes nonreligious language like “Grant us each day the desire to do our best”, the prayer is remarkably similar to the language of the prayer banned in Engel v Vitale, which read; “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.” Both prayers contain language that emphasizes morals and academic success, but both explicitly ask for these successes from a deity, which makes them both inappropriate for public school.

Using the Lemon Test, it’s evident that Cavanagh’s claim that the mural clearly serves no religious purpose is not actually clear. His argues that the prayer’s “secular legislative purpose” is to preserve the historical tradition of the school, but the history he aims to preserve is not secular; it’s that the school was established with religion in mind.

The second prong of the Lemon test, which requires no advancement of religion, is also violated for a number of reasons. The school gives a clear endorsement of religion that uses prayer by prominently displaying a prayer, and the contents give the impression that historically, the school believes that by addressing “Our Heavenly Father” one can achieve academic and moral success. This address also shows that the school supports theistic religions over non-theistic religions, which constitutes a violation.

All contents of the mural aside, a major problem with the display of the mural is its clear declaration as a “prayer”. Cavanagh claims that this prayer is secular, but even if the religious content of the prayer was removed (Our Heavenly Father and Amen), the heading of “School Prayer” would remain inappropriate. A prayer by definition is something directed at God or a deity, a religious observance, or a spiritual communion, which makes it impossible for any type of prayer to be secular, no matter its contents.

While support for the historical tradition aspect of this display may be found in Marsh v Chambers, this case doesn’t quite fit under that precedent. Marsh v Chambers found the opening of a legislative session by a chaplain constitutional because of the “unique history” of the legislation of the United States, but the only historical aspect of the Cranston West mural is that it was written by a student of the first graduating class. Allowing the mural to remain on historical grounds provides dangerous precedent for further cases--this could lead the way for depictions of artifacts like the Ten Commandments or Golden Plates of the Mormons to be displayed in Courts, town squares, or schools because, like the mural, they are “historical documents”, despite their clear religious messages.

Ironically, the school prayer was hung on the auditorium wall the same year the Abington School District vs. Schempp was concluded, in which the Supreme Court ruled that reading Bible verses in a public school is considered unconstitutional. So what is the difference between having students read religious passages or hanging one up on the wall? Since this prayer, starts with “Our heavenly father” and concludes with the word “Amen” I agree with Jessica in her opinion that it is a violation of her constitutional rights. This prayer establishes a religion within the public school by using terms such as those previously mentioned. Also, the banner is blatently titled “School Prayer”. The banner has religious intent, which is supported by the community in their argument that the removal of the banner violates their religious freedom. On her blog Jessica says that people told her if she did not like their Christian nation she could leave rather than try to change it and on another occasion one of her peers said, “If you don’t like it, too bad, we get to do what we want!” The issue here is that you cannot establish a public school as a Christian nation. By doing so, students like Jessica who are atheist, or of any other religion, are going to feel pressure to conform to the “norm” of the community in which they are submerged. Much like in Abington vs. Schempp this Rhode Island school is favoring a single religion and trying to force it upon the student body that seems to already be predominantly Christian, which still does not pose as an acceptable excuse.

I agree with Jessica in the aspect that her rights are being violated and that the prayer is an establishment of religion, however I do not believe it needs to be removed entirely from the school. Rather, the prayer could be altered so that the words “School prayer… Our heavenly father... amen” are removed therefore making it moreso of a mission statement. The entirety of this prayer does not have religious connotation, and by simply removing these religiously affiliated portions, people could choose to view the banner as they please whether its remembering it as the school prayer from 1963, or simply seeing it as a mission statement.

Under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, there is a religious exemption causing quite the controversy. The exemption states that all employers must provide contraception and sterilization as a part of their employees health coverage, unless you are a religious institution opposed to such things as it applies strongly to your religion. This exemption is not solely for churches or other places of worship, but it also applies to religious-based schools and hospitals. Due to the widespread nature of this exemption, it is not solely Catholics that will be affected.

This exemption means that everyone hired to work at a religious based institution, for example a Catholic hospital, can be denied the healthcare benefits of contraception, even though the majority of employees may not share those beliefs or they may even not be Catholic at all. Thus, this exemption may create more unwanted pregnancies and babies. It may also result in more sicknesses, due to women trying to get an abortion cheaply, since their healthcare does not cover it. However, there is also the push for religious-based hospitals to become more secular in their policies, particularly since so few employees at such institutions are Catholic at all. Another aspect to consider is that almost 1/5 of all hospitals in the United States are Catholic. That is a lot of women that will not be allotted affordable birth control by their healthcare provider.

Another reason why this exemption seems so unfair is because the Department of Health and Human Services recently mandated that employers insurance coverage for their employees must include contraceptive services and counseling free of additional cost, unless they are covered under religious exemption. Thus, if every other employee across the country is receiving these benefits, why should some people be denied that right? This is particularly an issue because most of the people hired at Catholic hospitals are hired for a secular purpose and no aspect of their job entails any sort of religiosity. If one’s job does not entail any sort of religious work, then why should their healthcare benefits deny you things because of a religious belief?

There are some highly religious people that are gunning towards an even more inclusive religious exemption. As it is, I believe that this exemption has enough state interest that it should not have been included in the first place. This is one instance of belief vs. action where the state should intervene. Even though these are religious based institutions, they exist for secular purposes. If the institutions serve a secular purpose, than the healthcare offered to their employees should be secular as well.

If an employee does hold those Catholic beliefs, than she does not have to make use of the added healthcare benefits, but don’t take it away from others who do not share those beliefs. I understand religious exemptions for perhaps a church, but I do not believe that religious exemptions should apply to institutions that have secular purposes.

On September 1, 2011, a Christian rapper known as “B-Shoc”(Bryan Edmonds) performed at New Heights Middle School, an under-performing public school in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Following his performance, Christian Chapman, a Christian pastor, was brought on stage and performed an “altar call,” during which he preached and encouraged students to commit their lives Jesus Christ. Video footage was taken and shows that both Edmonds and Chapman were clearly preaching their faith to these students. In the video, Edmonds stated, “Because of this, people in public schools are going to get to know who Jesus Christ is. And that’s what I’m excited about.” Additionally, Chapman preached, “A relationship with Jesus is what you need more importantly than anything else.” Chapman also posted various messages on his twitter page which display his intent to increase the amount of school students “giving their lives to Christ.” This situation immediately received attention from the American Civil Liberties Union as they have launched an investigation alongside the school principal to determine whether or not the concert/assembly was a First-Amendment violation. Click here to view the article, and here to view the video post.

Clearly, there is an evident issue at stake, as an assembly overtly advertising a Christian message was permitted to occur at this public school. Although no law suits have been filed, this demonstration has the potential to head in that direction, especially considering the numerous Supreme Court cases which have occurred in response to prayer and worship in public schools (the author’s refer to a 1985 Supreme Court ruling which overturned prayer in an Alabama school district). Chapman and Edmonds have the right to express their religious beliefs, but holding an assembly in a public school where their views were pressured and encouraged among the student body is extremely controversial. As mentioned by the author, this incident violates the First Amendment as religious neutrality was breached in this assembly.

Although many people (including a student who stated, “They touched the lives of some very important people — our youth. The overall experience was astounding”) saw the event as a positive occurrence, there were numerous implications that Chapman and Edmonds failed to recognize. The fact that the administration could permit a Christian worship service to occur in the school gymnasium during school hours is a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The anti-establishment clause has clearly been violated, and Chapman and Edmonds should not have been permitted the right to conduct a worship service this public school setting. They have the freedom to share their beliefs with others, but certainly not at a public school. As indicated by his Twitter posts, Chapman has a clear motive where he has made it his goal to obtain as many converts as possible. Allowing Chapman access to a public school student population is unfairly advantageous for him since his beliefs are unwillingly being inflicted upon a secular crowd in an institution where learning is the primary focus and religious neutrality is demanded (by federal law). Giving Chapman this opportunity is completely unconstitutional. Chapman has every right to express and share his religious beliefs, just not in a public school. Additionally, during this assembly, Chapman performed an “alter call.” This was a visual display where kids were asked to stand up if they chose to commit their lives to Jesus. Unfair pressure was placed on the students who did not want to line up because they chose not to “turn to Jesus.” Again, this is completely unconstitutional and should not have occurred. Before any work can be done to fix the internal academic issues, the school must put some serious effort into fixing the errors they just made. Yes, the message evoked by Chapman and “B-Shoc” may be positive and encouraging to some students, but holding a worship service in a public school is illegal by all means as it is a direct violation of the First Amendment. This type of assembly should never be permitted to occur again in any public school in South Carolina as well as the rest of the nation.

According to religious leaders in Britain, there has been a recent surprising revival of polygamy. This revival stems from an increase of the number of young British Muslims who are taking a second and third wife. A special report by the BBC Asian Network unveiled a report regarding the revival of polygamy based on findings from the Islamic Sharia Council, which provides legal advice and guidance to Muslims. The council admitted that they have had an unusual amount of questions about polygamous marriages, such that recent data has revealed polygamy is among the top ten reasons cited for divorce. Wives claim they cannot tolerate the competition with the other wives.

Within Britain, Polygamy is illegal. However, Muslim men are allowed to have a multitude of wives under Sharia law through a religious ceremony called the nikah. These second, third, and fourth wives are not recognized by British law but are seen as legitimate within certain Muslim communities. Khola Hasan, adviser to the Islamic Sharia council, said it was obvious that polygamy in the younger generations is on the rise and out of 700 applications for divorce in the past year, 43 were cited with polygamy as the reason. Hasan said her research revealed three main reasons for this revival. One deals with the increase in the number of young Muslim men who want to practice a more orthodox form of the religion. These men know that it is illegal to be married to more than one woman but continue to do it anyway. These marriages, however, were noted as having one of the lowest records of succeeding. Hasan proceeded to speak about how the wife usually does not want a divorce and wants her husband to continue supporting the children. Thus instead of living together and fighting, the husband will simply just take on another wife.

A similar case would be seen with Imran Patel, who is a second-generation Pakistani living in Birmingham. He was married by the age of 18 to a woman of his parent’s choice. Seven years later, he fell in love with another woman who was divorced with children. Instead of getting a divorce himself, he decided to marry the second woman. Patel said that while he did not initially tell his first wife, she easily accepted the situation when he told her months later. He claims to love them both and has created a unique schedule to accommodate his life style.

Perminder Khatkar, who was part of the investigation by BBC said there was also concern for wives in these polygamous marriages that are unaware that they have no legal rights. The Muslim Council recommended that those who marry under Sharia law should have a contract stating who is entitled to what. The contract requires the consent of all parties involved and could be challenged in British court.

In my opinion, polygamy should never be tolerated. From a woman’s perspective, it is disrespectful and degrading. How could one man love and treat five women equally and justly? It is not fair to have multiple women tolerating a competitive environment in their own marriage. Financially, the burden of supporting such a large number of people is outstanding. How could a father let one child be sent to college but say no to the next? There seems to be no logical balance for polygamous marriages and usually results in a lose-lose situation.

As we have seen in the case of Reynolds v. US, the law cannot in interfere with religious beliefs but can interfere with the practice of those beliefs. Polygamy can be seen as a political threat and not civilized. Monogamy is crucial to order and social liberty. As with the Reynolds case, the young British Muslim men are aware that polygamy is illegal however continue to marry under Sharia law. These men are committing a crime of bigamy and there is no benefit of this type of marriage to not only the parties involved, especially the woman, but also the government. I do agree, however, with the Muslim council enforcing those who will be wed under Sharia law to create a contract that settles who gets what if there were to be a divorce. Also, the issue of the women being completely unaware that they have no legal rights is unacceptable. Everyone needs to be aware of what they are truly getting themselves into. Overall, it comes down to a simple question; could you see yourself happy in a polygamous marriage?

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has ruled that elementary school principals are immune from liability for preventing students from passing out religious-themed items. The Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case, also known as the “Candy Cane” case was originally filed by parents of elementary students after school principals told the children they could not distribute their religious gifts. The students were banned from handing out candy cane pens with religious messages on them, giving out tickets to a religious play, and writing “Merry Christmas” on holiday cards sent to troops overseas. Attached to the pens were little cards titled “Legend of the Candy Cane” and explained the Christian origin of candy canes.

By a 10-6 vote, the Court agreed that principals Lynn Swanson and Jackie Bomchill deserved qualified immunity from being assessed punitive damages for their actions, reversing a district court's ruling that could have subjected each of the principals to monetary damages.

In the Morgan v. Swanson and Bomchill case the school principals argued that the First Amendment protection of Free Speech does not extend to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public schools. Government officials, on appeal, claimed that elementary school students are too young to have free speech rights. This case did not just involve two principals and some students; it threatened the basic rights every American is given, regardless of their age. The court ruled on November 29, 2010 that it is clearly established that elementary students have First Amendment rights. Had the court ruled in favor of the principals they “would have literally have stripped away the First Amendment rights of 42 million U.S. school children overnight," Liberty Institute president Kelly Shackelford (attorney for the parents of the elementary students) notes. "So we're very grateful that the court refused to do that. They said the First Amendment does apply."

Although this case is closed, what is currently under dispute by those involved is the lack of punishment for censoring the elementary student’s right to free speech. By limiting the rights of elementary students, these principals taught such young children that they do not have given rights. Not only did the principal’s actions take away rights, they violated a law and were not punished for it, what kind of message does that send to kids?

The 5th Circuit Judge Fortunato “Pete” Benavides said that “the many cases and the large body of literature on this set of issues' demonstrate a 'lack of adequate guidance,' which is why no federal court of appeals has ever denied qualified immunity to an educator in this area.” Essentially, since there is no precedent for handling teachers who violate students’ rights by trying to keep religion and the state separate, it’s okay to let them get off without any punishment. Also during the trial, the principals claimed that religion in school is a very confusing area. This statement could also set a precedent that any educators who are involved in a similar situation can just claim they don’t understand.

Personally, I believe that the principals should not be immune from liability for preventing elementary students from passing out religious-themed items. They broke a law, now they have to suffer the consequences, which most likely won’t be that detrimental anyway. Although I recognize that these educators were trying to keep religion out of the schools their actions took away elementary students basic rights. In any other free speech case there have been consequences, just because they are educators should not give the principals an exemption. If anything, the court should enforce the law more strictly on the principals because their actions directly affect children. I applaud the actions of the Liberty Institute who are considering appealing the issue of the principal’s immunity, because of the precedent it would set by leaving it unchallenged.