District Court Case Analysis

Reno, R.R. "Defending religious liberty." First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life 225 (2012): 3+. Academic OneFile. Web. 3 Mar. 2015.

Under the Establishment Clause, “The government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization and the government may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs.” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburg Chapter, 492 U.S 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106. L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). The Endorsement test applies to cases that involve government officials and religious beliefs at school-sponsored events. Id at 592. This could be seen if officials promote or favor religion. Id. Courts have found that if prayer being delivered at public school events, organized and supervised by school officials, regardless of the event being outside the classroom and after hours, the government is endorsing religion. Lee, 505 U.S at 604. Additionally, if the government merely pressures participates to attend a religious activity, such as an opening prayer, the government is indirectly endorsing religion. Id (Holding that school officials endorsed religion when students attended “football games” in which opening prayers were given). On the other hand, to avoid favoring religion, public officials must either embrace any religious faith or embrace none at all. Id at 609. State officials favor religion if these officials recognize one religious belief, but they do not acknowledge a dissimilar one. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S at 616. (Holding that the government did not endorse religion by recognizing two different beliefs). Thus, the Endorsement Test is satisfied if either the school board promotes religious activities or if the board’s punishment of Mr. Pitstick is in favor of a religious

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Application/Analysis: The court agrees that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud, but in this instance, the court takes issue with the fact that a sole authority, the secretary of the Public Welfare Council, can decide what is considered a valid religion. The court states that the secretary “is empowered to determine whether the cause is a

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

Abstract — Religious influence on judiciary, especially when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, is a complicated issue, and it has been controversial in U.S.. Talking about judgement for the influence, it’s not all-inclusive by only dividing them into liberals and conservatives, instead, a comprehensive approach is to focus on specific cases.

In concurrence with King, requiring professors in Christian Charter schools to refrain from wearing non-Christian articles of faith is not a reasonable infringement of Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Oakes test was conducted to deduce that the Charter infringement is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The first step of the Oakes test is to determine if the infringement is “prescribed by law”. A common law rule or regulation, in addition to legislation can constitute a limit “prescribed by law” (Sharpe & Roach, 2013, p66).

Town of Greece, New York v. Susan Galloway was a Supreme Court case that posed the question of whether or not the town of Greece should be allowed to open their board meetings with voluntary prayer that was almost always Christian prayer. The defendant in this case was the town of Greece, which is located in the state of New York and has a population of 94,000 people (opinion p.1). In 1999, under new leadership, the town of Greece made the transition from opening each town board meeting with a moment of silence to opening with a prayer (opinion p.1). The opinion states that the prayer was supposed to, “place town members in a solemn and deliberative state of mind, invoke divine guidance in town affairs, and follow a tradition practiced by Congress and dozens of other state legislatures (opinion p.2).” The prayer was given each month by an unpaid volunteer clergyman. After this person gave the prayer they were then named the “chaplain for the month” (opinion p.2). Anyone could volunteer to be a chaplain no matter what religion they practiced or even if they practiced no religion at all (opinion p.2). However, almost every single chaplain was Christian (opinion p.2). One very important fact about the case is that the town of Greece did not provide any guidelines or suggestions about what the prayers should include. In fact, they didn’t even read the prayers beforehand because they believed that would be impeding the chaplains’ first amendment right (opinion p.2). This meant

Although Engel V. Vitale has made an impact on many changes in America, it has also brought realization to problems left in the dark. One large problem that is still not solved is the length of time that is taken to come to a verdict for religious cases. A factor to this situation is the power protestants hold in the government. Cases concerning religion takes longer than almost every other cases of different

The majority opinion describes how the interpreter would not violate the Establishment Clause for multiple reasons. One, because the funding of the interpreter was not directly giving funds to the religious organization, but instead funding an aid for a student attending the religious school. This would not therefore count as promoting the religion because any money that the school gained was indirect and depending on the student’s and his family’s decisions rather than the government’s. The majority also argued that; the IDEA does not include any information in it that claims how the program applies to students depending on whether they are in public or private schools, and that the interpreter is not promoting or teaching the religion, but rather solely conveying information exactly how it is presented, something that Zobrest would acquire if he did not have his disability. The justices also made a statement similar to that of the dissenting judge in the appellate court, that the IDEA was intended to help the welfare of the public and did not necessarily run into Establishment Clause challenges because it may somewhat help out religious organizations in certain cases. On the other hand, the dissenting justices disagreed with the majority and the fact that the case was only judged and ruled on from a constitutional

This case emphasizes the importance of the right to freedom of religion, as disallowing an individual to participate in either a citizenship ceremony, or court proceedings solely based on their religious garments is not only discrimination but prevents justice from taking its

The court here looks to the actual result of the disputed action and whether it advances or prohibits religion. It held that the alleged effect must be seen,” from the eyes of a reasonable observer, informed and aware of his surroundings”. This objective reasonable observer must see a message of endorsement to the religion by the government. “the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval” Also, not any benefit transferred to a religious source constitutes the unconstitutionality status. Rather, the benefit must be direct and substantial. “Whatever benefit to one faith or religion or to all religions inclusion of the crèche in the display effects is indirect, remote, and incidental, and is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion “.

Brown v. Renter's Choice, Inc., 55 F.Supp.2d 788, 795 (N.D.Ohio 1999) (quoting Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications, 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir.1984)). In this case, Title VII does not cover the accommodation request. The convention is a learning opportunity, not an exercise of his ability to practice his faith. The Courts have looked at accommodations under the religious accommodations provisions. Common illustrations are request to have a particular religious holiday, or refraining from working on the Sabbath, or wearing religious garb. C fails to reach the threshold that attendance at a seminar hosted by your faith, is a protected action or exercise of practicing one’s

In Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalisms, Macedo presents the controversies between liberal civic education and religious diversity. As seen in the Mozert v Hawkins case, the school (representing Hawkins) implemented a reading program that require students from Christian families to read text that went against their religious views (471). Mozert argued that family should allow their children to opt out of the reading program to prevent exposures that undermines their religion. Although it can be argued similar to the Amish cases that opting out should be a viable option, Macedo’s argument that implementation of the reading program is valid because exposure allows for the developing tolerance toward diversity. The controversial

If you woke up tomorrow and found yourself part of a minority group that was treated like a second class citizens and denied civil rights how would you feel? Every day in the United States minority groups are denied basic rights that ever other U.S. citizen is grated. These rights are determined by the United States government that is influenced by religious beliefs, even though our country was founded with the belief of separation of church and state.