Case Controversy: Trinity Lutheran Church Of Columbia V. Pauley

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

The case of Galloway v. Town of Greece started in the United States District Court in the Western District of New York. The District Court held that the town’s procedure for selecting local clergy to offer prayers did not violate the Establishment Clause; and the town’s practice of opening board meetings with prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause (732 F.Supp.2d.195). The case was appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. The Court of Appeals held that the town of Greece’s legislative prayer practice, under totality of circumstances, had to be viewed as endorsement of particular religious viewpoints in violation of the Establishment Clause (681 F.3d 20). Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the

The Supreme Court case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer (2017), revolves around the issue as to whether religious institutions can participate in public state secular aid programs. Back in 2012, Trinity Lutheran Church applied for the Scrap Tire Grant Program in Missouri in order to repair a playground in its preschool/daycare center. Under this program, Missouri would receive rubber from recycled tires that would be used to cover the play areas. The application, however, was declined by the Missouri state government because of a constitutional provision that stated that “no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or denomination of religion.” (American Bar)

Procedural History: The plaintiffs (Doe), which where twos families that followed the Mormon and Catholic religions both made up of current and former students and their parents, filed a law suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas citing the defendants (Santa Fe School District) were in violation of their First Amendment as it pertains to the Establishment

After researching the details of Good News Club v. Milford Central School case, many questions rose about Clark County School District, in which I work. Clark County School District has a “Non-Discrimination and Accessibility Notice” that is very clear of the purpose to not discriminate and what step should be taken if a group feels discriminated against ("Clark County School District", 2014). The U. S. Supreme Courts decision does affect the students as well, especially in high school. Students are allowed free speech as to their religion and are able to form clubs and hold prayer, before and after school. I agree that students and groups (clubs) should be allowed free speech and practice as long as it does not interfere with school instructions and procedures. I still have many unanswered questions: How many groups are allowed access before and after school, per school? Is it on a first apply, first serve basis? How far is too far with religion and culture? Whom are the people that get to decide what groups are at what schools? I will continue to follow up on these questions as I have more discussions with my current principal and supervisor. I feel that it is best to know all the rules and regulations by asking questions, rather than assuming what is right and

They have also violated equal access act which stated that schools must not restrict or deny any student from attending any after-school club regardless of the club’s contents. The Equal Access Act also states that schools are allowed to be excluded from this act by prohibiting all non-curriculum clubs in the school. But since the school has always permitted non-curricular clubs, then there should be no valid reason as to why the boe of westside is prohibiting this christian club from operating. These are the reasons why the the Equal Access act did violate the Establishment act, since the Equal Access act only ensure that in public school the freedom of religion and speech is not violated by school regulations. In closing, we ask that the supreme court should uphold its decision that religious groups should be allowed to operate in public school because it does not violate the establishment clause and is protected by the Equal Access

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

of an expert, the religious beliefs and lifestyle of the respondents not only must remain

In the case regarding the Amish community, a court case against Amish parents (Wisconsin v. Yoder), the Amish parents used the First Amendment under the free exercise clause to protect their religious belief that children do not need a “formal high school education beyond eighth grade”(Fossey and Eckes, 2015, p. 73). Or the case regarding Locke v Davey, in which the argument was about scholarship money could not be used for ministry program. The supreme courts decided that it did not violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment and left it for the discretion of the state. In the case of gay rights coalition of Georgetown University law center v. Georgetown University. Apparently, this student organization (LGBT) wanted to exercise

I concur the first amendment protects students right to express themselves in various distinctive school environment such as during discussions, and interaction with their peers. Moreover, public schools cannot prevent student’s ability to pray and learned about diverse religion in the curriculum.

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

A public official allowing the deputy clerk to sign a same-sex marriage license does not violate the “Lemon Test”. However, making adherence to a religion can prohibit religion. Justice O’Connor concurred, that the Establishment Clause can prohibit in two principle ways and “One is excessive *688 entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherent of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E. g., Larkin v. Grendel 's Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982)” (Lynch 688). When all things considered, to avoid entanglement between the state and church, and to affirm a religious right, RFRA claims will require some measures from the endorsement test. Importantly, when applying RFRA to Byrd’s case there was no entanglement between the state and church; Byrd’s refusal to sign same-sex marriage license was not impermissibly used to influence his religion; neither was he trying to avoid the government interference with religion. However, for a RFRA claims; it is required some measures from the endorsement test because of the growing increase of religion into the workplace. Providing that only the endorsement test will protect the religious rights of any one who is in the political community.

By applying the three-prong test established in Lemon v. Kurtman, the Supreme Court concluded the exemption was, in fact, constitutional. Both authors agree with this decision and argue the exemption must continue to be upheld today. The Establishment Clause clearly forbids the government from intervening in a church’s ability to advance its religion. The Court held the exemption prevented government entanglement and was enacted to thrwart such involvement.

Respondent Hastings College of Law conditions official recognition of a student group on the group’s agreement to open membership to all students who want to join. Hastings College of Law is a public law school that maintains an open access policy that does not violate First Amendment rights, therefore does not need to provide a religion-based exception for CLS. All RSO’s are drawn from mandatory student activities fees, following the “all comers” policy that ensures what Justice Ruth Ginsburg said, “No Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject him or her as a member.” The issue that led CLS to press suit was the unconstitutional position to prohibit groups to form around beliefs but not around

After many frustrations and disputes arising out of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the termination of Bill Establishing A Provision for Teachers of Christian Religion and the new Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom mark a necessary and significant turn. The people of Virginia can finally savor the religious freedom that they longed for. I shall hereby applaud the efforts pushed forth by the honorable James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and so many others who shared the common stance on religious freedom and separation of church and state. However, the achievement seemed provincial when placed in the context of the larger United States. The new nation is at great stake because the congregational church in Massachusetts disallows and persecutes any deviation from its core religious interpretation; Jews are perceived as the enemies of the Christ by a large group of people; and the Catholic minority in many states still suffers. Therefore, absolute religious freedom and the separation of church and state shall be guaranteed in the new constitution in order to maintain the supremacy of God over the state and purity of the God we trust, annihilate the violence, persecution and tyrannies the God disdains, uphold the God-given natural rights we once fought for and construct this blessed new nation to be free and prosperous.