Religion & American Law

In a recent New York Times article Jessica Ahiquist, a Rhode Island atheist won a suite against her schools prayer poster. Jessica Ahiquist is a die hard, outspoken Atheist who battles a dominant Roman Catholic city in her wish to have her schools prayer removed from the walls of the auditorium. The prayer has been hanging in school for almost 50years and, Jessica's wish to have it removed has struck many people in the town in a negative way. A seventh grader wrote the prayer as moral support, and the 1963 graduating class presented it as a gift to the school. The landmark Supreme Court ruled against organized prayer in schools one year after the prayer was presented. The prayer begins with “Our Heavenly Father grant us each day the desire to do our best” and goes on before it ends to say Amen.

A federal judged ruled this month in the favor of Jessica Ahiquist, stating the school prayer was unconstitutional and violated the principle of government neutrality in religion. After the decision to have Cranston High School eight feet tall, 1963 prayer removed; Residence have flooded school board meeting demanding an appeal against the ruling. Jessica has received many online threats and has to be escorted by police to school. This emotional issue has gained the attention of many including State Representative Peter G. Palumbo who called Jessica “an evil little thing” on a radio talk show. Many florists refused to deliver Jessica flowers sent from a national Atheist group. The group later decided to file a complaint with the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights. Despite of the negative attention Jessica has received, many supporters of her wish have praised her for her bold efforts. A support group based in Wisconsin and has given Jessica $13,000 in scholarship funds.

When looking at an issue like this one you have be careful and put your feelings behind you because although I see nothing wrong the prayer, it is definitely unconstitutional. The fact that the majority of the school approves of the prayer and the battle is against one person does seem unfair. The prayer has been hanging in the school for nearly 50years and was there before organized prayer was banned from public schools for this reason I do believe an appeal should be granted in the wish to keep prayer in the school. I also think the main issue is control, the fact the one student has the power to change something that the majority of the community disagree with is upsetting. Often people may loose sight of what they are fighting for which leads to the questions: Are you fighting for Religious reason or Are you fighting because you want the power to control?

          Late last week, attorneys from Alliance Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of the Good News Club, a Christian club in the Dysart Unified School District of Arizona, claiming that a ban on the distribution of the club’s fliers is unconstitutional. The fliers were banned on the basis that publishing and distributing fliers (or any literature) of a “religious nature” is against district policy. Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel for the Good News Club, claims that this ban is a direct violation of the First Amendment, and attributes the district’s breach to a “…misperception of what the establishment clause requires.” He goes on to say that the First Amendment mandates equal treatment among all groups – religious or otherwise – and states that denying this group from distributing fliers when other groups are being permitted to advertise their activities in this manner is unconstitutional. Tedesco is asking the court for an injunction that would prevent the district from continuing to infringe upon the rights of the club.
          A similar story is unfolding in Oklahoma, where students of Northeast Elementary School are suing the Owasso Public School system for hindering their attempts at advertising their Bible study group in the same manner as other school groups. Again, the Alliance Defense Fund filed suit on behalf of the youth group, citing the district’s policy as a direct violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Both the Good News Club and the Kids for Christ  youth group are permitted to make use of school facilities for their meetings and activities, but the policies restricting the manner in which the clubs can promote their group is hindering their ability to attract new members.
          These two situations are essentially identical, and consequently, they raise the same issue: To what degree should the church be separate from the state? Personally, I think the ban is unconstitutional and unnecessary. First, if the school is going to allow other, non-religious groups to advertise through fliers and other literature, the Christian clubs should be permitted to promote their organization in a similar fashion. Also, because it is the students – not the school – that endorse the club, any argument that the state would be promoting Christianity is unfounded. What the state is doing is restricting these students’ rights on the basis of their religious beliefs, something which is clearly prohibited in the First Amendment.
          Not only is the ban unconstitutional, but it is also unnecessary. Those who do not wish to read the fliers are not required to do so. Throughout the school year students are bombarded with fliers and advertisements for things like intramural sports, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, chess club, science club, Mathletes, art club, cheer-leading, etc. The fact that the majority of these announcements will end up in trash cans or recycle bins clearly points to the student’s ability to determine which activities they may be interested in. The Christian club fliers are no different. Students are capable of making informed decisions about which clubs they wish to participate in based on their own values and beliefs. As long as the fliers follow reasonable guidelines that are applicable to all groups, the Good News Club and all other Christian clubs should be permitted to promote their gatherings in the same manner as other outside groups. 

By now, I think we’ve all noticed how diverse the Mormon community is.  Billboards, commercials, even bus signs have been showing the faces of every ethnicity you can think of in an effort to present a new image of the Mormon Church.  CNN’s Belief Blog covered the church’s campaign in their article "With 'I'm a Mormon' campaign, church counters lily white image."  The article points out that all the billboards and commercials are the result of a marketing strategy of the LDS Church to diversify their public image.  “Since January, the LDS Church has spent millions on an ‘I’m a Mormon’ advertising campaign that features television commercials, billboards and bus signs with Mormons from African-American, Asian, Latino and other ethnic backgrounds.  Just last month, the campaign entered 11 new major media markets in Texas, Indiana, Nebraska, Washington, Georgia, Arizona hitting cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix.”  This campaign is an effort to get rid of the common perception of the Mormon community as one that is predominately white.  So what does all this have to do with politics or law for that matter?  It matters because the Mormons’ diversity campaign couldn’t have come at a better time for GOP primary candidates Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, both of which are Mormon.  While the Mormon Church claims to be avoiding politics by not advertising in Iowa, South Carolina, or Florida, the campaign’s efforts may have had an unintended effect on the Presidential election.  In an election year where it seems that religion does matter as voters choose their candidate, the Mormon campaign could have open the eyes of Americans to the possibility of the first non-Protestant Christian President. 

In a recent article in the New York Times, President Obama’s decision regarding exemptions to his healthcare reform legislation has had a serious effect on religious institutions. Under President Obama’s new healthcare reform laws, all employers are to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including various forms of birth control, at no cost to the employee. Church-affiliated organizations are extremely opposed to this piece of legislation. Most feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in direct violation of their moral opinions. Although, exemptions may apply to employers without variations of faith among employees, the exemption is not applicable to multi faith religious institutions such as hospitals and universities. Despite arguments from several religious institutions, President Obama has made his final decision not to broaden the exemption, but to extend the compliance deadline by an additional year for religious institutions.

Although the most apparent issue at hand is the far too familiar battle between Church and State, the ongoing opposition by the Church to science and women’s rights can also be detected by moderate observation. The state makes every attempt not to inhibit institutions of faith, while still providing services to its citizens. This, however, becomes complicated when services being offered by the state are not in compliance with the moral order of its citizens as decided by their faith and the Church. The policies of the state are often allied with modern principles of science and individual’s rights. In modernity lies infringement upon tradition and ancient practices and beliefs held so tightly by the Church.

If the exemption to religious institutions is broadened, those who are in moral agreement with the use of contraception may be deprived the opportunity to receive the same healthcare benefits as those not employed by a religious institution. A nurse at St. Joseph’s Hospital may have fewer healthcare opportunities than a cashier at the local Wal-Mart, despite her moral regard towards contraception. With the exemption maintaining its current limitations and specificity, it allows people with differing religious perspectives from their employers to receive premium quality healthcare. This is a modern piece of legislation conducive to the modern society in which we operate. Our society is one in which individuals are given the opportunity to utilize readily available resources in order to maintain a higher standards of health. We have scientific evidence to prove the effectiveness of better healthcare decisions, and thus we alter our legislation and lifestyles accordingly. Although this inevitably will result in discrepancies between the separation of Church and State, this piece of legislation in no way inhibits faith based traditions, and ultimately places the responsibility of healthcare decisions on the individual.