Religion & American Law

This example of establishment issues in public schools comes to us from May of last year, so the case is a little bit dated, but I still feel it poses some controversy worth talking about.  Daniel Harper is a student at Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma who was disciplined by the university for distributing fliers that were religious in nature.  In an article by WorldNet Daily (usually just referred to as WND) describing the situation, Harper's fliers consisted of expressions of his opinion stating that a group called World Mission Society "was a pyramid scheme 'fronting as a religious organization' and distorted the Bibles teachings."  Another student of Cameron University--who remains unnamed--was offended by the viewpoint that Harper's fliers presented, and made a complaint to the university.  After hearing of this complaint, the university then began its disciplinary procedures on Harper and his actions.

What is interesting is that Harper was actually found in violation of the Equal Opportunity Policy, which is outlined in the university's Employee Handbook.  There have been obvious complaints about this, since Harper is a student and not an employee.  In addition to this rationale, the university officials also told Harper that he could not distribute the fliers because "other students found them offensive and he didn’t receive prior approval."

However, the most surprising rationale that Harper received from the university came from an Equal Opportunity Officer named Thomas R. Russell, who told Harper that the policies of the university are above "those amendments to the Constitution," and that the rights outlined by the First Amendment are merely "foundations," and that the university's policies serve to build off of them, but not necessarily to abide by them.

Harper filed suit against Cameron University with the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).  Senior Legal Counsel for ADF, David Hacker, argued that public universities are supposed to be an open place where students are free to express their ideas, and that the "First Amendment protects freedom of speech for all students, regardless of their religious beliefs."  The ADF has also pointed out that the university allows various other groups and individuals to express their views on campus.  Another ADF Senior Counsel member, Kevin Theriot, also made the statement that the university officials "don’t get to pick and choose which theological viewpoints can be expressed on campus."  Both ADF and others who have expressed complaints over this case hope that Cameron University will revise its Expressive Activity Policy and its Equal Opportunity Policy to truly parallel the amendments of the Constitution.

This case sounds similar to one of the cases we have discussed in class, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia.  Student Ronald W. Rosenberger's case was somewhat different in that he was asking the university to provide the funding for the publication "Wide Awake," which contained a religious viewpoint.  As we know, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rosenberger, claiming that the university's denial of funding constituted viewpoint discrimination, which violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.  The situation is the same here: Cameron University is using viewpoint discrimination against Daniel Harper's fliers, which is unconstitutional.

I would definitely say that Harper's free exercise rights were violated here.  I was also appalled at the fact that Russell blatantly stated that the university's policies went above the amendments of the Constitution.  That is obviously not right.  So what do you guys think? Should Daniel Harper be allowed to distribute his fliers even though they may be offensive? Or should Cameron University's policies be upheld and kept as they are?

           Indiana recently passed what is being referred to as a “religious freedom bill”. This bill ensures business organization owners that they will not have to go against their religious beliefs in order to help certain customers, such as the cake store owner who refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple. A more recent case such as this came about recently involving a videography business that refused to film a wedding for a same-sex couple. Are these business owners required by law to provide their services if it means going against their religious beliefs? This bill says no, they do not have to because their religious rights are protected.

reme Court is getting closer to legalizing same-sex marriage, it seems questionable what the true intent is. This raises the issue of whether private companies should be legally allowed to discriminate against potential customers based on his or her own religious beliefs.

The article can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-philly-public-buses-must-run-ads-linking-muslims-to-hitler/

Anti-Islamic advertisements, including the one pictured above, will soon be plastered on buses and trains in the Philadelphia and New York areas. These ads link Muslims to Hitler in a photo with the caption: "Adolf Hitler and his staunch ally, the leader of the Muslim world, Haj Amin al-Husseini." The purpose of these advertisements is to end United States aid to Islamic countries. The ads insinuate that the Islamic religion inherently hates the Jewish population, and that these sentiments are written in the Quran. To many, this seems hateful and discriminatory. These advertisements can be seem by some as hate speech. But, are the public cities of Philadelphia and New York City allowed to prohibit these advertisements? Is that a violation of the First Amendment right to Free Speech?

First, it is important to note that the subways, trains, and buses are public domain. The MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) in NYC, and the SEPTA (The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) in Philadelphia are forms of public transit. This is not a private company deciding what advertisements it wishes to display.

The ads are being published by a non-profit based in New Hampshire called The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). The group argued that these advertisements were relevant and appropriate "in light of the fact that many Jews (and Christians) are being persecuted in Islamic countries in the Middle East." SEPTA, however, prohibits advertisements that disparages any groups based on sex, race, sexual orientation, religious preferences, disability, etc. SEPTA argued that these ads promote hateful speech against innocent civilians among its one million daily customers. SEPTA, therefore, worked to block these ads from reaching the public.

AFDI, however, filed legal complaints against SEPTA arguing that their Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment was being violated. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, a conservative non-profit group, believed that they had the right to get their message across to the millions of people who take public transit. 

When this case was brought to court, the judge ruled in favor of the AFDI, saying that SEPTA was in fact violating the group's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. "It is clear that the anti-disparagement standard promulgated by SEPTA was a principled attempt to limit hurtful, disparaging advertisements." Goldberg wrote, "While certainly laudable, such aspirations do not, unfortunately, cure First Amendment violations." So, while the court agreed that the advertisements were disparaging, the judge found that to restrict these ads is to restrict the First Amendment rights of this group.

I agree with the court's decision on this case. While I may not agree with the hateful speech written on these advertisements, I believe that every person should have freedom of speech, not just those that we agree with. These advertisements are not doing physical harm to anyone, and are simply trying to garner support for their somewhat unpopular opinion. SEPTA has run advertisements in the past that take stances on public issues such as animal cruelty, fracking, contraception, etc. If we allow groups such as Planned Parenthood or the NRA to advertise their beliefs, which are often offensive to some, why shouldn't we allow groups such as this nonprofit from New Hampshire to state their religious and political beliefs? Simply because I do not agree with their beliefs is not a good enough reason to block their right to their freedom of speech.

These ads display very strongly worded messages of hate about the beliefs of Islam. I wondered whether or not the correctness of the speech on the advertisement would affect how the court ruled. If, in fact, Islamic Jew-hatred was not in the Quran and there was no evidence of this hatred, would that make the advertisements unconstitutional? After some research, I found that the First Amendment amendment even protects incorrect speech. So, the validity of the argument on the ads are irrelevant in this instance.

I believe that the city of Philadelphia did the right thing by making it clear to the public that they do not promote the beliefs of this group, but by also respecting the findings of the court and adhering to the First Amendment. I believe that this case is different from others that we have looked at, such as the gay marriage cake, because it is a public institution that cannot deny customers in advertising simply because they wish to.

What do you think? Should public transit, such as SEPTA, be forced to display advertisements that go against their beliefs and, in their opinion, promote hate speech? Or should freedom of speech be protected whether the group is promoting love or hate?

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama spoke in Selma, Alabama at a ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” when Alabama state troopers attacked 600 people attempting to march from Selma to Montgomery to protest their lack of voting rights. President Obama’s speech focused on honoring and recognizing these early champions of civil rights and expressing the ways where the country still can build on the progress it has made. It is important to note the role religion played in his speech.  President Obama chose to conclude his speech by quoting from the book of Isaiah:

“When it feels the road’s too hard, when the torch we’ve been passed feels too heavy, we will remember these early travelers, and draw strength from their example, and hold firmly the words of the prophet Isaiah:

‘Those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles. They will run and not grow weary. They will walk and not be faint.’

We honor those who walked so we could run. We must run so our children soar. And we will not grow weary. For we believe in the power of an awesome God, and we believe in this country’s sacred promise.”

Obama’s use of the passage in Isaiah and his references to God is an example of the complex relationship that government has with religion. The exact nature of what this relationship should be has been debated ever since the framing of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment wrote that the amendment built “a wall of separation between Church & State.” In Everson, Justice Hugo Black invoked “the wall of separation” as a useful interpretation of the first amendment and added, “Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.” This idea of separation has surfaced many times in the Supreme Court, notably in the form of the Lemon Test.

If one were to hold a separationist interpretation of the First Amendment, one could logically come to the conclusion that President Obama violated the Establishment Clause in the speech he gave in Selma Alabama. Acting in the highest office in the land, Obama endorsed religion in a way that was not neutral to all religions or between religion and non-religion. The term, “Those who hope in the Lord,” asserts a certain element of exclusiveness. The importance of God seemed foundational to the speech and Obama did not seem to respect the wall of separation. And Obama would certainly not be the first president to beach this wall. Nearly all US presidents have invoked God in their inaugural addresses.

However, I believe that “the wall of separation between Church & State” is not a good interpretation of the First Amendment. Thirty-seven years after the Everson case, Justice Burger wrote in Lynch v. Donnelly that the wall of separation is a useful metaphor that reminds us that any kind of established church is prohibited but is not an entirely accurate description of the practical relationship of government and religion. Rather than separation, the first amendment “affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” In the case of Obama’s speech in Selma, I do not believe that anything he said was hostile to a particular religion or lack of religion. His use of religion appealed to what Burger describes as “an unbroken history of official acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” While there are certain instances that I believe tradition should not be used as an excuse for establishing religion, Obama’s speech does not establish religion. Unlike cases of formal public school prayers or pledges, the issue here does not involve people being forced to partake in any kind of religious activity. While Obama was acting as an agent of the state, he still is an American who is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. If Obama believes that America has a sacred promise, he has the right to express that belief in the same way other people have the right to disagree with it. Allowing politicians to talk about religion upholds neutrality between religion and secular beliefs. If we limit what presidents and other employees of the US government can and cannot say, we are beginning to create a state that restricts ideas and judges what constitutes as religion.

Do you think President Obama overstepped his bounds and established religion in his speech at Selma? Please respond in the comment section below.