Religion & American Law

Clifton Williams has been a practicing Muslim for 20 years but is currently incarcerated at State Correctional Institution Mahanoy. During one of his scheduled work times in the kitchen he had not yet been given any assignments, so he decided to complete one of his five daily prayers. He found an isolated corner away from the working area where he could pray, but prisoners were not permitted to occupy unauthorized areas on their own. After five minutes of prayer he was ordered to return to his duties in the kitchen but he refused; he was eventually removed from the kitchen and taken back to his cell. Williams was punished for refusing to obey an order, and for occupying an unauthorized area. Williams pleaded guilty to the misconduct charges because, in the Muslim faith, once a prayer has commenced one must continue until it is finished. Williams filed a civil rights action pursuant against SCI Mahanoy for violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In order for there to be a violation, he must show that the facility prevented him from “engaging in his religion without any justification reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

Balancing the rights of the incarcerated and maintaining a safe environment for the inmates as well as the guards is a complex topic. Based on the ruling, it was determined that there was no violation of the Constitution because the guards have an obligation to maintain safety and security within the prison. With nearly 400 inmates and just 26 guards, the inmates cannot be left alone in an unauthorized area. Prisoners also have plenty of time to pray in their cell, that is why they are not permitted to pray during work hours. The conflict here is whether or not the prison should make accommodations for Muslim inmates so that they can have access to a clean room for prayer. In the past, during Ramadan, the facility provided a separate room for Muslim inmates to pray. In the meantime, prisoners are supposed to use the break room and or their cells to practice Salah. Williams complained that the break room did not suffice because other inmates tracked dirt and urine on the floor. I feel that making a special room for prayer would be an accommodation that violates the Lemon Test, because it would favor Islam and it would not serve a secular purpose. Another solution would be to implement a new ‘leave and return’ policy which would allow inmates to leave work in order to go and pray. This would require the inmates, like Williams, to be removed from work with an escort. However, this could cause further conflict by weakening the security force overlooking the inmates in the kitchen, and other prisoners would take advantage of this accommodation to get out of work. I feel that in order to maintain a maximum security level, without making special religious accommodations, and enabling the Muslim inmates to practice their religion with relative freedom; their five prayers must take place in their designated cells or in the break room. This would not interfere with their labor hours, nor would it jeopardize the level of security within the prison.

A few days ago Americans United, a group “committed to church-state separation and individual freedom” announced that a settlement was made in the case Stewart v. Johnson County, Tennessee. Ralph Stewart got the attention of the court when he sued the Johnson County Commission after their decision to refuse him the right to display his literature about the historic role of church and state separation in American law within the lobby of the county courthouse. The county had created a limited public forum in which individuals or organizations can donate displays that “directly relate to the development of law…” The items did not need to secular as evident with the Ten Commandments and a 26-page pamphlet entitled “From Biblical Morality to Modern Law” already present within the display. The county declined to include Stewart’s literature, “On the Local Heritage on the Separation of Church and State” and “The Ten Commandments Are Not the Foundation of American Law” on the grounds that it did not fall within the subject matter of public forum. The settlement was in favor of Stewart and required the Johnson County Commission to display the posters in a prominent place, payment of $75,000 in legal fees, and a modification to its policy to establish that county commissioners may not reject a display because they dislike the content.

The constitutionality of the county’s actions is in question. Did they violate the establishment clause by solely allowing Christian material to be publically displayed within the courthouse? In my opinion yes they did. Although Stewart’s literature may lean towards being non-religious rather than solely secular, it still deserves equal representation within the governmental display. “I’d prefer for government to stay out of the business of promoting religious documents altogether,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “But if government officials choose to go down this path, they must at least play fair and treat all citizens equally.” By allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed but not allowing literature that opposes this viewpoint and credits the common and statuary law of England to be the basis of American law benefits Christianity over non-religion.

In my opinion Johnson County decided to settle on this case rather than see it out because they knew they were in the wrong by allowing an official to disallow equal representation based upon their personal religious views. Stewart’s presentation clearly fell within the “subject matter of the public forum” by utilizing many of the same historical sources of the other Christian displays. Due to the apparent favoritism towards the religion the county decided to settle and alter the requirements for future displays. The settlement requires all rejections to be accompanied with a written explanation with valid reason not simply because commissioners don’t like the content. County officials also included a disclaimer stating that the “displays are sponsored by private citizens, not the county” to hopefully alleviate and future legal trouble.

On Monday, October 31^st 2011, in an 8-1 ruling the Supreme Court rejected to listen to an appeal of a ruling on the placement of religious symbols alongside a state highway. Along interstate fifteen in Utah, there are dozens of crosses that have been erected to honor fallen state troopers. These crosses are white, twelve feet tall, with six-foot crossbars. These structures were donated by the Utah Highway Patrol Association and placed near where the troopers died. The Utah Highway Patrol Association is a private group and since 1998 has paid for and erected fourteen memorial crosses, created to honor state troopers who have died while on duty. Of these fourteen, eleven are on state property while three are on private property. Not only do these crosses display the name of the deceased trooper, but also their picture, badge number, biographical information, as well as the symbol of the Utah Highway Patrol.

In 2005 the Texas-based American Atheists Inc. along with three Utah members sued the state of Utah for violation of the establishment clause. The American Atheists Inc. believed that there was an improper mixing of government and religion because the shield of the Utah Highway Patrol is on the crosses. At a federal appeals court in Denver in 2010 the crosses were deemed an unconstitutional endorsement of Christianity by the state government. The crosses were too be removed from public property immediately. The basis of this decision, as the three judge panel stated was the crosses would leave any “reasonable observer” with the impression that “Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment”. Although this state court ruled against the crosses, the Supreme Court side stepped the entire problem. The Supreme Court refused to listen to the appeals for this case. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that this case would allow the court to clear up the confusion over how to determine whether or not the Establishment Clause has been violated. Since the Supreme Court has declined to make a decision, the case will now go to a federal judge in Salt Lake City for an order to have the state take down the crosses.

This case has brought up a large amount of criticism of the Supreme Court. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to settle debates over constitutional rights, and if the Court can’t make a decision how are the lower courts supposed to know what to follow. By refusing to address the problem, the Supreme Court is not following its duty. Justices are supposed to handle complicated constitutional issues and determine a ruling, by not picking a side it leaves all lower courts confused. Not only that, but by not setting a standard the Court leaves room for greater discrepancy between cases. Another problem with the Supreme Court’s decision is that they did not even bother to utilize their favorite tool, which they have often used to determine establishment clause cases. The Lemon Test has been a useful instrument used by the Court for many different cases, so why did the Court choose not to use it now? Although this case is certainly not simple, by reviewing it with the Lemon Test it is clear that these crosses create government entanglement with religion. The cross is widely recognized as a religious symbol and by allowing it to be placed on public property with a state organization’s shield; the crosses clearly violate the establishment clause. Had the Court chosen to review this case, it should have ruled the crosses to be unconstitutional. To that effect, the Supreme Court would determine another way that those who have died could be honored, such as putting the crosses on private property or by creating different memorial structures without religious implications. Overall it is apparent that the Court could have made an effective decision, but instead they decided to not get involved.

In its entirety, by refusing to listen to the appeals the Supreme Court has forgotten the key issue here, separation of church and state. The Supreme Court should have addressed this issue, which would have an effect taken away much of the gray area surrounding establishment clause issues. How do you think the Supreme Court should have handled this case? Do you believe not taking an active role in this case was the right decision? If you believe the Supreme Court should have heard the appeals, what do you think their ruling would be?

Belmont Abbey College, a private Catholic liberal arts college in Belmont, North Carolina is suing the government due to their opposition against a new regulation requiring employer health insurance plans to provide coverage for contraceptives and sterilization. As a Catholic school the college feels that this is an infringement on their right to free exercise of religion, as the regulations violate their religious beliefs.

The mandate behind this issue is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is supposed to come into effect in August of 2012. This act sets up preventative health care coverage for women with no cost and covers mammograms, prenatal care and cervical cancer screenings. In addition it provides contraception, sterilization and drugs such as “Plan B.”

In order for the school to be exempt from offering these services mandate they must first, have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose, second they must primarily employ people who share their religious beliefs, third, they must primarily serves people who share their religious beliefs, and four they must be a nonprofit organization under specific section of the Internal Revenue Code. Unfortunately for the college they fail to meet these requirements.

Not only is Belmont Abbey fighting this battle but also along with them are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Catholic universities and schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations and all have a strict opposition to this mandate. This team against the mandate is attempting to avoid the exemption rules making a point that unless the college restricts enrollment to Catholic students and begins to only hire those who believe in the Catholic faith, then and only then will they qualify for the religious exemption. By only allowing Catholics into their school or only hiring employees based on religion would be prejudicial, and will help them prove their point.

A Washington-based nonprofit, public interest law firm, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is representing the school. They filed the lawsuit on November 10^th. The senior legal counsel on the case for the Becket Fund, Hannah Smith said, "A monk at Belmont Abbey may preach on Sunday that pre-marital sex, contraception and abortions are immoral, but on Monday, the government would force the same monk to pay for students to receive the very drugs and procedures he denounces." The Becket Fund is trying to illustrate that the schools teachings should agree with their actions.

The lawsuit states, "The government's mandate unconstitutionally coerces Belmont Abbey College to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties. The mandate also forces Belmont Abbey College to fund government-dictated speech that is directly at odds with its own speech and religious teachings. Having to pay a fine to the taxing authorities for the privilege of practicing one's religion or controlling one's own speech is un-American, unprecedented, and flagrantly unconstitutional."

This issue presented is obviously a matter of free exercise. The question is: Should Belmont Abbey College be exempt from the health care mandate? Although I am sympathetic to the college and their beliefs, I will have to disagree with their opposition. As they admitted they do not just employ employees of the Catholic faith and they do not have only students that consider themselves Catholic, which is why I feel they should not have an exemption. By denying those they provide health care for certain services I feel it is an infringement on those people’s rights. When it comes to health care for Americans there needs to be strict guidelines for all. There should be no exemptions to deny hard working citizens access to health care regardless of the religious affiliation of where they work or whom they work for. Setting strict guidelines will prevent any disturbance in society. In Reynolds v. United States the court ruled against Reynolds because it would be in violation of social duties and order. I think that by allowing the college this exemption it will be denying people things they need and could possibly cause a disturbance in social order.

In order to boost citizen engagement in everyday political activities, the Obama Administration created a section of the White House website called “We the People” which allows citizens to create and sign petitions. Once these petitions reach a certain amount of signatures, the White House will review them and make a decision on them. The Obama Administration recently rejected two of the more salient petitions: one for the removal of “In God We Trust” from our nation’s currency and the other for the removal of “One nation under God” from the pledge of allegiance.

These petitions are of particular interest because what they have inadvertently hit on in their quest for complete governmental secularization is a very good example of the limits of the establishment clause. While the phrases “In God We Trust” and “One nation under God” do not necessarily establish one particular religion, in the petitioners’ eyes it places a premium on religion over non-religion.

I personally disagree with this blogger’s view on the matter. While he clearly sees an issue with the Obama Administration rejecting these petitions, I think that the white house made the correct decision in this case. This particular incidence falls into the category of justifying church and government entwinement based on legacy and history as well as the extent of the entanglement. This rationale has been used before by the Supreme Court to decide on issues such as the town of Pawtucket’s inclusion of a crèche in their state sponsored Christmas display (Lynch v. Donnelly) and the constitutionality of state funded chaplains opening state legislatures with a daily prayer (Marsh v. Chambers). In both of these instances, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the inclusion of the religiously affiliated acts (crèche and chaplain). They maintained that history/tradition as well as the extent of the entanglement were deciding factors. In Marsh v. Chambers, Chief Justice Burger states that “The opening sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From the colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom.” In Lynch v. Donelly Burger again stated that “… it is clear that Government has long recognized – indeed it has subsidized – holidays with religious significance.” However he continues with his lack of entanglement argument (which I personally think holds more water in this case): “Entanglement is a question of kind and degree. In this case, however, there is no reason to disturb the District Court’s findings on the absence administrative entanglement.”

Ultimately, history, tradition and the extent of the entanglement is what this case comes down to. These two phrases have been used to describe the United States government for long enough now that they have become secularized. When I say those phrases I don’t feel that I am appealing to a higher power or some supreme deity, rather I feel like a patriotic American. Moreover, even if people dispute the fact that “One nation under God” is not really historical since it was added in the 1950s; there just is not a case of excessive entanglement. I simply cannot see how an American citizen could legitimately claim damages merely against saying or reading a simple phrase. I could understand if it was occurring on a special occasion, or if the religious entanglement was of some heinous degree, however the fact that these phrases are used so regularly (and have been so for more than 50 years) and that the entanglement in practice is so minor, I cannot sympathize with the undersigned.

Nathan Henderson, a Muslim, is suing the American Bottling Company because he believes that he was fired due to his religious practices. In September 2007, Henderson was pulled aside by his boss to discuss reports that Henderson had been taking time during the workday to say his five daily prayers. Since these prayers only lasted approximately two minutes his boss said that he did not have a problem with Henderson saying his prayers during the workday. After this meeting Henderson then asked his boss if he could take his lunch break to match up with Jumma prayers, which is a Friday only congregational prayer. Henderson’s request was denied. Henderson then suggested that he could make up the hours he missed by working on Saturdays, however the supervisor told him that working on Saturdays were reserved for employees with the “most seniority”. Henderson was also told by his supervisor that he should have disclosed his religious beliefs during the interview because he would not have been hired. A few days after meeting with his supervisor Henderson was fired for “not meeting the job requirements”.

This case brings up the right to free exercise of religion. Henderson is allowed to freely practice his religion and he is not allowed to be discriminated against based upon his religious beliefs and practices. A company cannot discriminate against their employees based on religion; they must make all reasonable attempts to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees.

I believe that Henderson has a legitimate case of his right to free exercise of religion being denied and that the company did discriminate against him based on his religious beliefs and practices. Henderson, prior to accepting the job, should have informed his employer that he would be taking five short breaks during the work day to pray. Even though he did not do this, and after some complaints were filed about it, his supervisor did the right thing by saying that Henderson could take those breaks since they were short and did not interfere with his overall productivity. Henderson then requested to change his lunch break time to coincide with a congregational prayer period so that he could attend the prayer session. I feel that the Company was right it not allowing Henderson to change his lunch break time to coincide with the Jumma prayers. If the company allowed this request than they would have to start allowing many other religious based requests to take time off. This specific request impacts the flow of the workday too much so it was right for the company to deny it, even though Henderson offered to make up the time missed on Saturdays. The real problem comes however, with the firing of Henderson. From the article, it does not seem like there was any reason besides Henderson’s religious beliefs for him to be fired. Also, the fact that the supervisor told him that if he would have known prior to hiring Henderson of his religious beliefs that he would not have hired him, showing that the firing of Henderson a couple of days later was purely discrimination based on religious beliefs. Henderson was not refusing to work during the Jumma prayers on Fridays; instead he just put in a request to change his lunch break so that he could attend them. If he would have said that he would not work during that time on Fridays then we get into a situation like the Braunfeld v Brown case. The questions that this case raises are; where do we draw the line for religious accommodation? And what is considered to be a disruptive religious practice to the day of work?