Religion & American Law

Article can be read here: http://www.religionnews.com/2015/04/16/okla-attorney-general-wants-private-citizens-distribute-religious-literature-schools/

This past week, the Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt announced an initiative he plans to carry out that would allow private citizens to distribute religious literature in public schools. This policy, which Pruitt says would be neutral and would allow all of Oklahomans to distribute material regarding any religion, comes in response to an incident that occurred earlier this month. A third-grade teacher distributed Gideon Bibles to her students at an Oklahoma public school. This led to a Satanist church asking permission from the government to distribute Satanist literature at public schools and from there, debate sparked.

Those who believe that Pruitt's initiative and the teacher's actions were wrong claim that the First Amendment specifically denies the government from allowing public, government-funded institutions to advance religion in such a way. The role of public schools, they claim, is to teach in ways that do not include religious propaganda or messages.

Those who take the other side, like Pruitt, argue that the Free Exercise Clause, along with the Free Speech Clause, allows for any citizen to share any religious material in public. “Under the United States Constitution, school districts can permit private citizens to distribute to students religious literature, including bibles,” [Pruitt] wrote. “To allow private citizens to do so,  the school should simply enact a neutral policy that allows equal access for all Oklahomans to engage their free exercise rights.” The key here that Pruitt emphasizes again later in the article is that so long as the policy is neutral and does not exclude any religion or place any one religion above other religions, then it is constitutional for anyone to distribute religious materials in public schools because they have the right to share and practice their religions in public.

This issue is an interesting one and while it is similar to many of the cases we have read and discussed, it reminds me of two cases in particular. The first one is Town of Greece v. Galloway.
In that case, the Court ruled that legislative prayer is constitutional so long as clergy of all different religions are allowed to come lead prayers. This is a similar case because Pruitt is calling for a neutral law that would allow followers of all different religions to distribute religious materials to public school students. So in that sense, I believe the Court would agree with Pruitt and rule his initiative as constitutional.

Pruitt's initiative also reminds me a lot of Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, albeit in a much different way. In that case, the majority ruled that Oregon's ban on peyote is neutral and generally applicable and thus, even if it burdens some religion(s), it is still constitutional. The law that most, if not all, states currently have in place bans the distribution of religious materials in public institutions, a law that is neutrally applied among all religions. So even though it may burden some religions, I believe the Court would rule Pruitt's initiative unconstitutional. While a case could be made that the initiative is neutral and generally applicable, the majority in Employment Division would likely believe that since the effect of distributing religious materials could very well lead these young students to ignore laws because of religious requirements or practices, the initiative should not pass.

The issue at hand, however, is also a much different case than the one in Town of Greece. In Town of Greece, the Court distinguished between something being offensive and something being coercive. The Court ruled that legislative prayers may be offensive, but they are not coercing any of the legislators to believe in one religion or another. This issue is different because when the material is being distributed to such young children, coercion is very likely to occur. These third-grade students could realistically and reasonably read the material and decide that it is true since young children often believe much of what they read. And since this would all be happening in public schools, which are funded by tax-payers, I believe this would be an example of government becoming excessively entangled in religious affairs. I understand the decision in Town of Greece, but the people involved in this case and the situation is much different. When religious coercion reasonably could occur or is likely to occur, the government must then take action to prevent this.

Additionally, the fact that these students could read some of a religion's practices and then carry those practices out, even if the practices are illegal in their state, leads me to believe that Pruitt's initiative is not constitutional. For example, if the students read about a pamphlet written by members of the Native American Church and decided that they wanted to use peyote since they were so interested in the religion, then the effect would be more and more people ignoring laws banning illegal practices.

For these reasons, I believe Pruitt's initiative is unconstitutional. What do you think? Do you think that if a law is neutral among all religions, it should be passed? Or do you think the issue at hand is an example of excessive government entanglement?

Kelvin Cochran served 7 years as Atlanta city fire chief until he was recently dismissed by Mayor Kasim Reed. Cochran has filed a lawsuit against the mayor, claiming wrongful termination and a violation of his constitutional first amendment rights.

In 2013 Cochran self-published a book titled, "Who Told You That You Were Naked?" The book is written from a Christian perspective and reflects on a variety of topics including the very controversial and relevant topics of homosexuality and lesbianism. In the book Cochran strongly criticizes same sex relations. He goes so far as to characterize them as "sexual perversion" and "vulgar" and also compares them to "beastality" and "pederastry."Cochran handed out copies of this book in the workplace to fellow employees. An AFRD member complained to a member of the city council that a book containing such religious and offensive material was being distributed in the workplace.

Cochran was originally suspended without pay due to violation of city policy. City officials say Cochran violated city policy by distributing a self published book to employees at the workplace. Mayor Reed claims that Cochran was dismissed not because of his religious beliefs but, "because he displayed bad judgement," and did not follow correct protocol. According to the city code of ethics Mr. Cochran was required to get permission from the board of ethics before engaging in any activity privately for profit. This part of the case is suspect in the sense that Cochran claims "he was authorized during a 5 minute phone conversation with Hickson (ethics officer)." Hickson denies the claim and claims she has no memory of the call nor does she have the authority to approve his proposal.

Cochran and his legal counsel feel as though he was not terminated due to his "bad judgement" or lack of compliance with protocol, but because of his devout Christian perspectives on same sex relations reflected in his book. Attorneys say, "the devout Christian was targeted by the city simply for espousing his biblical views on sex."

ADF Senior Counsel David Cortman said,"In America a religious or ideological test can not be used to fire a public servant. That's precisely what the city did." The first amendment protects a public servant's right to distribute religious material at work to those willing to receive them. The salient constitutional issue regarding Kelvin Cochran's termination is that it represents a hostility towards religion and discrimination based on religious perspective on same sex relations. Cochran's counsel highlights that the city is being hypocritical in terminating him for being intolerant of other lifestyles, but then being intolerant of his first amendment right to practice and express his religion without discrimination or threat of termination. Cochran told a news outlet that he believes, "his dismissal is symbolic of growing threat on religious freedoms facing Christians and other people of faith around the nation."

I feel as though termination on the grounds of violation of policy or for breaking the code of ethics guidelines is certainly justified. It is unclear due to the conflicting opinions of Mr. Cochran and Mrs. Hickson, whether or not Cochran violated that protocol. However any termination based on Kelvin Cochran's religious perspective reflected in his privately funded and self published book is unconstitutional.

Although I personally do not agree with the views expressed in Mr. Cochran's book, I acknowledge that the first amendment protects his right to express them. As often mentioned in class, no one has the right to not be offended. It is shame that a member of the AFRD felt uncomfortable with the content and presence of the books at the workplace, but Kelvin Cochran was within his rights to distribute them and express his view. Mr. Cochran was essentially terminated because the state did not support the views expressed in his book. This shows both discrimination and hostility towards the Christian religion and is unacceptable. I understand that there is a compelling state interest to have leading public figures be tolerant due to their presence in the public sphere, but there is no evidence that this personal belief has led to any on job discrimination or problem with Cochran's work. I understand that if he wrote in the book saying that he wouldn't save a homosexual from a burning building that is different, but Cochran should be able to have a religious stance, regardless of its popularity amongst the city council, and be able to express that outside his role as fire chief and as his role as a citizen of the United States, protected by the first amendment. I think there are some ties between this case and the situation with California judges that must remove themselves from involvement with Boy Scouts groups. California judges can't be leaders of Boy Scout groups due to the Boy Scouts exclusion of gay group leaders and their religious stance on homosexuality. Again I disagree with any LGBTQ discriminatory policy, but I think it is also wrong to disallow the judges from being apart of a group outside their realm of work, they are public figures and therefore all of their actions are put under a microscope, however, they should have the freedom to be citizens outside of their profession and participate freely in such a group. By the same reasoning Kelvin Cochran should be able to write a book containing Christian perspectives without the fear of termination. This case causes the issue of hostility towards religion and now other public servants, police offers, military officers will be living in fear of termination if they express their religious beliefs openly.

What do you think? Was Cochran rightfully terminated? Read the article here. 

Original Article:http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/washington-nationals-sued-for-religious-discrimination/

Throughout the 2013 baseball season, three men of the 7th Day Adventists church were permitted to avoid working games that were on Friday nights, and Saturday days, citing those times as being ones designated for religious purpose under their religion. However, at the end of the season, the Nationals decided to fire the employees because their religion required an accommodation.
The three employees have filed a religious suit against the team citing religious discrimination, and are seeking damages as well as back pay for time missed due to their termination. All three of the defendants are DC residents who had been given significant praise by their supervisors, and were regarded well within the community as efficient and effective ushers. The suit further claims that the team had began reassigning its ushers, and scheduling more games during the sabbath time of observance for the three men. According to the 7th Day Adventist church, the sabbath is supposed to be observed from sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. The Nationals fired the ushers on the grounds that their religious observance prevented them from working the minimum 80% of the teams games.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are generally forbidden from discriminating against an employee based on religion, and must accommodate the employee should their sabbath observance come in conflict with their work schedule. Exceptions to the rule come into play when the employer experiences some form of 'undue hardship'. This qualifies as excessive expenditure by the employer, or requiring other employees to overcompensate for those who are in observance. While there are potential legitimate cases that could be made regarding undue hardship, it is unlikely that the Nationals will allow this to go to court, and a settlement is sure to come.
In regards to free exercise, I understand the position that the 7th Day Adventists find themselves in. The three ushers are obligated by their religion to be in observance. However, I find myself siding with the Nationals in their termination of the ushers. The inability to work Fridays and Saturdays at a baseball stadium is, in my opinion, a sense of undue hardship. These are key nights in baseball, where there will be the most attendance, and the highest necessity for reliable employees. If the organization cannot rely on these ushers to work these key time slots, I am sure there are other people more then willing to show up on time and work those shifts. It is an unfortunate circumstance where religion crosses over into the workplace, however, I think it is most efficient for the organization to have consistent employees. In this case, they will be able to find those employees, who are not in need of such accommodations.

What do you think? Constitutionally, this is a grey area, as I interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however, you may have another opinion. Is there a case to be made for undue hardship? or is the organization blatantly exhibiting religious discrimination?