Religion & American Law

Earlier this month, 44 people were arrested while protesting a ban which would bar religious groups from conducting worship services in New York’s public schools. 68 congregations will be effected by the ban, but a majority, if not all, of these congregations are Christian. Led by their pastors the protestors chanted “Freedom of Worship!” They discussed their congregations’ community service record to clarify their charitable nature. New York’s Department of Education responded they were “concerned about having any school in this diverse City identified with one particular religious belief or practice.”

Did these public schools, and by extension the government, expose students to the religious ideas or activities which occurred there after hours? Some pastors claim to have no interaction with students and others admit they interact with students only after hours in the form of tutoring or other charity for students of all beliefs. While not explicitly stated in the article, it seems during the school week there are no signs of the religious organization within the school. As any exposure to these congregations in voluntary, I do not understand how the school would become identified with one religious belief.

Considering the constitutionality of this ban seems fair as protestors were chanting for “Freedom of Worship!” This ban doesn’t circumscribe these congregations’ religious freedom as they are still free to believe what they wish, practice their religion and to rent another building to worship in. The First Amendment guards against laws “respecting an establishment of religion” which includes “connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Allowing these congregations to meet does not violate the first amendment. However, these congregant’s religious freedoms aren’t being infringed either.

Secondly, they argue that when they are barred from meeting in public schools they can no longer help the community, which can be argued is a tenet of their religion. I have read multiple descriptions of this ban which is described as either a ban against religious groups meeting on public property or specifically banning religious worship in public school buildings after hours. If the latter is true, these groups will still be able to rent public schools, and the ban will not affect their ability to use the school as a base for their charity work. If it is the former, their capacity to quickly and efficiently reach those in need, especially students, may be hampered although their charity would not necessarily have to end.

An article describing the same case in 2005, discusses a judgment in favor of the congregations. However in this earlier article, the discomfort of New York City’s citizens towards churches occupying schools even after hours is more obvious. Does the government attempt to steer clear of religious groups since their mere presence is enough to make some constituents uncomfortable? Unless there are extenuating circumstances, it seems fair that all groups should be able to rent public spaces. The situation in New York illustrates that the government views religious and secular groups as separate and different entities. If these congregations are paying rent, not influencing students who attend the school during normal hours, and enriching the community why should they not be allowed to meet at schools?

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.