Religion & American Law

According to the Washington Post, 28 year old Lamont Butler, like any other new home owner, recently invited friends over to show off his new home;  he was especially eager considering his new digs in Bethesda, MD consisted of 12 bedroom, 6 kitchen adorned with imported marble.  The home hosted a number pivotal political gatherings during the Clinton campaign, and Al Gore planted a number of trees that are growing in the back yard.  All is seemingly normal, until it is revealed that the home actually does not belong to Mr. Butler, but rather he broke in, and deemed the home his own.  Mr. Butler claimed that the house belonged to him because he is Moorish.  

Gortz Haus Gallery is an art gallery owned by a Mennonite couple in Iowa. Just a week ago from today, the couple sued the Iowa Civil Rights Commission because they faced penalty for refusing to host same-sex weddings in the church building that is a part of their facilities. The couple, Betty and Richard Odgaard, claim that same-sex marriage is fundamentally against their religious beliefs as Mennonites and that by complying with the law they are in public violation of those beliefs. The Iowa Civil Rights Commission dictates that "any...proprietor... of any public accommodation or any agent or employee thereof: (a) [t]o refuse or deny to any person because of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity" etc. As far as the state legislature is concerned, the Odgaards are in violation of discrimination. Additionally, it is important to note that the State of Iowa does legally recognize same-sex marriage. The couple was sued prior to their complaint with the ICRC based on a discrimination case after they refused to host a same-sex wedding ceremony. With the suit, the couple has received countless pieces of hate-mail and threats (included as evidence in the complaint, if interested). Ultimately the Odgaards wish to be exempt from the legislation and for an injunction to be placed on the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs attempt to establish in their complaint that they have not and do not discriminate in regards to sexual orientation, stating that they have hired and served gays and lesbians in the past. Furthermore they consistently maintain that they do not wish to violate their beliefs and that the space used for the wedding ceremonies is explicitly a church. Thus the couple would feel their beliefs further violated by hosting same-sex ceremonies in such a space. Other employees of the art gallery share in the Mennonite beliefs, and the Odgaards do not want to subject them to violating their own religious beliefs as well.

Some would argue that the Odgaards have clearly discriminated against same-sex couples by refusing to accommodate them. In regards to how the law is stated, they have. We've seen that in past cases, the courts often side in that direction. For example, there was the New Mexico photography company that was found guilty after refusing to photograph a same-sex wedding just this past August. The question becomes then, is there anything different about this specific case?

I do think that the location of these potential services plays a factor in deciding a case like this. If the couple was refusing to host same-sex marriages solely based on their religious beliefs, precedent would show that they would be found guilty. Yet, if they feel as though preforming such a service would desecrate what they consider a place of worship, a sanctuary, are they more validated? Their written complaint does not play this angle as much as I feel it should. Established churches can refuse to preform same-sex marriages, so I feel as though the couple's concerns about the sanctity of the space are honest. Yet at the same time, the opposition could argue that the church is no longer serving its function as a place a worship and exists currently as a business and should be run as one. This is compounded by the fact that Iowa recognizes same-sex marriages. If such a marriage is protected, the argument for a secular business refusing services to a same-sex couple is substantially weakened in that it is almost compulsory that they are recognized as legitimate by the citizens of Iowa.

The complaint further claims that practitioners of the Mennonite faith have historically been persecuted and subsequently protected by the government. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, although dealing with the stricter Amish, the Courts appears to abide by this statement. However, I disagree with this angle. The sect that the couple belongs to has long divulged from its Old Mennonite Roots.To group them in with those persecuted is a small stretch of the truth and to me personally, an invalid argument. Yet, who am I to be that judge?

In the past, I would have quickly sided against the couple. However, I feel slightly different in this case and I am beginning to be a bit more sympathetic to the other side of the argument. This is especially in regards to the hate-mail, which I believe is wildly inappropriate at anytime or from anyone, including the LGBT community. Nonetheless, I find discrimination based on sexual preference to be wrong and prosecutable under the law. Moreover, the current operation of the building is as a business, which in the past I argued must operate secularly, even if religiously themed. Being a former church, this case stretches my willingness to defend that statement steadfast in all situations. However, based on recent precedent, I ultimately believe the court will decide against the couple and uphold the charges against them. 

Here is the full complaint.

The town of Wausau, Wisconsin is not known for much.  Wausau Paper company, the Eastbay headquarters, and that it was my place of residence this past summer are its only claims to fame.  Recently, however, Wausau East High School has been making headlines in local, national, and biased news outlets over what some are calling a "War on Christmas."

More Jingle Bells, less Silent Night

The issue at hand for this alleged "War on Christmas" is the religious content of music at the holiday concerts of the "Master Singers," Wausau East's elite singing group.  In past years, the Master Singers performed roughly a dozen holiday concerts throughout the local area, with a substantial amount of the songs having a religious theme.  This year, however, the school board received complaints about the content of the musical selections and decided to act.  The verdict the school board granted choir director Phil Buch three options.  Option one was for Buch to choose one religiously themed song for every five secular songs and continue with the holiday themed concert.  Option two was for the Master Singers to perform their holiday concert, but without holiday music.  Option three, which Buch chose, was to cancel the December concerts entirely.

The community did not respond well to the school board's ruling.  Even some school board members, such as Pat McKee, want the board to reverse their decision and allow choir directors to select their own music.  McKee cites numerous calls and letters that the school board has received in response to the decision, "99.9%" of which were written in outrage.  He puts the blame on school superintendent Kathleen Williams, who he claims has also not responded to questions regarding the origin of this conflict.  In defense of the ruling, school board president Michelle Shaeffer said that the goal of the ruling was not to eliminate all religious music from holiday concerts but instead prevent "too much" religious content in the program.  Shaefer also cited the religious pluralism that America prides itself on, and believes that it is within the school's best interest to respect that, despite the fact that the majority of Americans and Wausau residents are Christians.

Despite choir director Phil Buch admitting he is a "man of faith," he has been clear that his intention is not to promote religion over religion or religion over non-religion, but rather teach the students through the most relevant songs available.  While this issue primarily deals with songs about the Christian holiday of Christmas, Buch says that his choir does not limit itself to religious songs that are strictly Christian.  He says he has chosen Hebrew, Russian, Italian, and Canadian songs for his choir to sing, thus he believes he is not favoring Christianity.  Nevertheless, Buch still felt it was better to cancel the concerts than to elect option one of holding a holiday concert with one religious song per five secular songs.

This issue has not been brought to court and remains an internal issue for the school, though they are facing significant external pressure from parents.  The school board's ruling was certainly based on the Establishment Clause, though with a little creativity, perhaps parents could make a case that their children's free exercise was being compromised.  In this post, however, we will focus on whether the school board's ruling represents a proper interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

There are many aspects of this issue to consider when deciding whether the school board's actions were justified.  First and most significantly, this is a public school, funded by the state.  If Wausau East was a private school, this would not be an issue.  Second, the school board provided the choir with two legitimate options for acceptable ways to allow the winter concerts, which was certainly a compromise. The school board did not shut down the concerts, Buch shut down the concerts because he felt that was preferable to being required to perform five songs like "Jingle Bells" for every "Silent Night."  Third, the school board may have felt that the amount of Christian music was excessive, but it was likely done with proportion to the religious affiliation of the district, including minority representation.   Fourth, the National Association for Music Education says that limiting religious music in schools would be detrimental to the student's learning experiences since religious music represents a large portion of relevant music available.  The views of this association are significant because they oversee many American High School music programs.  The first two points support the school board's decision while the last two contradict it.  This issue is very complicated and no matter what action the court took, someone was going to be upset.  However, the school board showed that there is no constitutional right against being upset and took action that consequently upset the most people.  Was it the right action?

I believe that the school board was justified in their ruling to limit religious music at holiday concerts but I find their ruling to be too harsh.  Instead of one of every five songs, I would like to propose that no more than half of the songs chosen have a religious theme.  Additionally, I would add a rule that of the religious songs chosen, no more than half can be from any single tradition.  I find this solution to be rectify the complaints Buch had regarding his limited access to much of the relevant material for holiday concerts, while also preventing "too much" religious material and ensuring that minority traditions are represented.  A strict separationist approach of not allowing any religiously themed music would result in favoring non-religion over religion, but allowing all religiously themed music favors religion over non-religion.  The question at hand is now where the line should be drawn.  This is somewhat of an arbitrary task with no clear precedent, which is why this is such a difficult issue to resolve.

What do you think?  Did the school board get it right?  Did I get it right?  Was any action necessary?  Do you have a different solution?  Is this a "War on Christmas?"