Jesus Lunches Case Study

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.

The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).

Issues involving public schools and religion have been topics involving intense debate. It is difficult for the government to elucidate the appropriate boundaries of religion in the public schools. It is true that teaching about religion is permitted in the public education systems, but the real question is where the margin should be set between teaching religion and simply teaching about religion. It is almost impossible to teach about the history of the United States without teaching that religious beliefs associated with the history, artwork, and literature. More than the public is lead to believe, The Constitution permits religious activities in and around public school buildings. It is unfortunate that the

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 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).

Des Moines is an important case for free speech in the United States. It affirms that students don’t lose their rights when they go to school. However, it also affirmed that schools can limit speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others” (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969). However, the Court has ruled that there are times that the school can limit speech. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in Bethel v. Fraser that students can be disciplined for using vulgar and offensive language in school (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p. 25). This case differed from Tinker v. Des Moines because that case was about political speech or expression. Another example of where school can limit the First Amendment is school sponsored newspapers. This was affirmed by the Court in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988). That decision stated that schools can reasonably limit the content of school-sponsored newspapers (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, p.

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.

Over five years have passed since high school senior Joseph Frederick was suspended for 10 days by school principal Deborah Morse after refusing her request to take down a 14-foot banner he was displaying at a school-sanctioned event which read “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” Born as a seemingly trivial civil lawsuit in which Frederick sued the school for violating his First Amendment rights to free speech, the case made its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the long-awaited ruling of Morse v. Frederick has finally been released. In a 5-4 split decision, the court ruled in favor of Morse and upheld the school board’s original ruling that Morse was acting within her rights and did not violate Frederick’s First Amendment rights by taking away his

In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to

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

In 1995, there was a dispute between the Santa Fe Independent School District, and the families of the students who went there. Two different religious families filed a lawsuit against the Santa Fe Independent school district because religious prayers were being said over the public address system by the student council chaplain. The Santa Fe’s Independent School District violated the Lemon test law by allowing student-led prayers to be recited on the public address system, which was not furthering the student's education, they were not acting neutrally toward religion, which is a distinct part of the Lemon Test rule, and they violated the rule against government and religion being mixed.

The School lunchroom, is it a place to observe religious freedoms? I think schools should make meals for religious restrictions available in the school cafeteria, because all students need to feel that schools care about them, this will make them feel included without raising costs. This is being used in other states and an example of that is California. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition Service have instructions that have been provided to everyone, but they leave it up to local governments to do as they see fit. The document is more directed towards the “Jewish schools, institutions, and sponsors participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)” (Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)) in California.

For that reason, they must comply with the First Amendment. This means that although they can communicate about the inspirations of religion in the past, writings and reasoning they can't encourage religious beliefs or observe it as a portion of the core curriculum. Subsequently isolated and provincial schools aren't run by the government, the First Amendment doesn't relate to them. Correspondingly, students can be exempted from some school events if they cause a problem with their spiritual opinions. It is up to the district to allow teachers to start the day or a meeting with a prayer although prayers, biblical interpretations and megaphone religious zeal disrupt the First Amendment because they encourage religion. This is correct even if the request is professing no faith or any specific religion. Moments of silence might be unconstitutional it depends on whether or not the real reason they're being held is to encourage prayer. Every single student have the right to pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disturb classroom education or additional instructive events or attempt to coercion of others to pray alongside them. If a school official has expressed to you that you can't pray by no means during the school day, your right to use and choose your religion is being

Forcing students to say religious phrase “under God” violates U.S. citizens’ first Amendment rights of freedom of religion. “The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of

According to Essex (2006), one of the requirements placed on schools is that they remain viewpoint neutral. This means that if the literature was suppressed because it was religious in nature, the suppression violated her First Amendment rights, even in the school setting. In all court cases, the real message has been that schools are responsible for making sure parents and students are aware that the schools are merely sending messages indiscriminately from religious and non-secular sources and that they are not in support of any of them (Essex, 2006). Really the essence of the article is that sound policies must be in place, well documented, and consistently followed for a school to be able to regulate what a student says or distributes and there must be no endorsement of any particular ideas from any group or student.