Good News Club v. Milford Central School

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.

1. Yes, I believe the Bible club has legitimate grounds to file suit for use of school facilities. Principal Gayle Dixon’s decision to deny the club use is based on her interpretation of the club’s charter to be discriminatory and not necessarily the law’s or districts.

What was the court’s decision in the case? What reason did they give? What landmark case did they cite?

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

By applying the Coercion Test, the court will find that the school board did coerce their impressionable students to attend biased board meetings and to partake in Christian prayer. “The constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a religion or religious faith.” Lee, 505 U.S at 585. The Coercion Test protects school-aged children from

The Supreme Court ruled in favor for Lopez on April 26th of 1995. In a disputable 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld

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 Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

Decision: In 1985, the principal and superintendent of Westside High School (a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska) cited the Establishment Clause as a reason for denying the request of Bridget Mergens to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. Ms. Mergens took the case to court, and won at first. She lost on appeal at the 8th Circuit Court, and then later won in a 8-1 decision from the Supreme Court

A couple of the families were Jewish, another family was atheist, one parent was Unitarian and the last parent was of an ethical culture society. The Parents were to believe that the school was violating the first amendment of the constitution and this was not right; that according to Thomas Jefferson there should be a separation of state and church. Never before had the public school board been argued against with prayer like issues ( Haas, pg 7-20).

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

Rep. Kimberly Daniels (D-Jacksonville) introduced House Bill 303, which would protect students, parents, and school officials when they express their religious beliefs within the confines of public schools. The measure also allows students to lead prayers and lets school personnel participate in such activities, Christian Broadcasting Network details.

Christiananity is under attack in the small town of Middleton,Wisconsin. This time a by the local school board because a group of mothers have been offering a "Jesus Lunch" to students who are permitted by the school to take a 30 minute off campus lunch break. Although, I am not a religous individual I do respect others rights to share their message as long as it isnt pushed upon people or persuaded in a public education facility. This clearly isnt the case in this incident as the "Jesus Lunches" are taking place in a park which is leased by the school district. The school district claims that during school hours they reserve the right to enforce school policies. In a letter to the parents addressing the issue school officials stated, We

As advocated in the Lamb argument, because of the many similarities that the group shares it is clear that the district has opened the School up to a wide variety of communicative purposes. The amount of examples the Church can offer, or the amount of exceptions the School can make is immaterial. What matters is that the Church shares traits with accepted groups; therefore the School does not have a valid reason to maintain a limited public forum. This makes the School a designated public forum. Now the same rules that govern traditional public forums