Freedom+of+Religion

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: //"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.// " This wiki will seek to explore the first of these five freedoms, the freedom of religion, and will furthermore examine the history and development of the freedom of religion as it is applied to college campuses nationwide.

 Freedom of religion is largely thought to be broken up into two separate clauses: the //Establishment Clause// //("Congress shall make no law respecting an **establishment** of religion...")// and the //Free Exercise// clause (//...or prohibiting the **free exercise** thereof//"). The Establishment Clause, [|as defined by Cornell University's Law School], not only forbids the government from establishing a specific religion, but also forbids the government from favoring religion over non-religion, or vise-versa. The Clause also prohibits the preference of one religion over another in all governmental actions. [|The Free Exercise Clause] allows all American citizens to practice any religion they choose to believe in. Cornell University's Law School goes on to state that one's actions on behalf of their religion are also protected. However, as later discussed in //Reynolds v. United States 1879//, this is not necessarily true-- while many religious actions are indeed protected, such as the wearing of religious-affiliated clothing in a school that may have a uniform policy, the government can indeed regulate one's religion actions if those actions violate a federal law.

 __**Landmark Cases Regarding Religious Freedom**__

 There are multiple landmark cases regarding freedom of religion that have further advanced our understanding of not only what we as citizens legally can and cannot do, but also what public organizations such as universities and businesses may and may not do when it comes to one's religious beliefs or actions.

 **[|Reynolds v. USA (1878)]**

 The //Reynolds v. USA (1878)// decision was the first Supreme Court case that involved the Free Exercise Clause. In Reynolds vs. United States, it was determined that although the government cannot regulate one’s beliefs, it can indeed regulate one’s religious actions if those actions violate a federal law. In this instance, Reynolds had practiced polygamy, which is illegal in the United States but condoned but his Mormon religion.

 ** //“ To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” –Reynolds v. USA (1878) Decision // ** =The Court also noted that by allowing Reynolds to continue to practice polygamy without punishment would be akin to allowing human sacrifices without a murder charge if one’s religion permitted it. Therefore, one must be careful when expressing their First Amendment rights. For example, while it is perfectly within one's First Amendment rights to verbally disagree with a campus preacher, it is not permissible to remove one's clothes and stand nude next to him in defiance of his controversial views, as that would be violating the federal law regarding public indecency. =

 ** [|Engel v. Vitale (1962)] **

 In //Engel v. Vitale (1962)//, it was made clear that any state-imposed mandatory school prayers were unconstitutional, as it violated the Establishment Clause set forth by the First Amendment. Another aspect of this case outcome is incredibly important for future policy implications in schools: the case decision establishes that even if the child is excused from the school prayer or allowed to remain silent during the school prayer, it is still unconstitutional, as the state-imposed prayer itself negates the boundaries established by the Establishment Clause between church and state.

 ** //“ The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. ” –Engel v. Vitale (1962) Decision // **

**[|Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)]**

In //Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)//, a three-pronged test was established to determined whether or not a proposed government regulation would violate either of the two religion clauses. The three prong test goes as follows: <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> If the regulation can successfully pass all three of these prongs, then it is deemed acceptable for implementation.
 * Does the law/regulation/policy have a religious (sectarian) or non-religious (secular) purpose? If the regulation is secular in nature, then…
 * Does the law neither advance nor inhibit religion?
 * Does the law cause excessive entanglement with religion?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> ** [|Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> //Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)// again prevailed on the side of religion, allowing Amish students to drop out of public school after eighth grade in order to be further taught in their Amish community. According to the Amish belief, high school attendance was contrary to the Amish belief system and may cause irreparable spiritual damage if Amish children were forced to comply with the mandatory school attendance policy.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> //<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">“ The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.” –Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Decision // **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> ** [|Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> In //Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)//, a Louisianan Act mandating the teaching of “Creation Science” to offset the teaching of evolution in public schools was deemed unconstitutional. Those who had appealed all the way to the Supreme Court claimed that by not allowing teachers to teach Creation Science, it was imposing upon their right to academic freedom. The Court viewed Creation Science as having no secular purpose and thus ruled that the Louisiana Creationism Act <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">was in violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court also ruled that by forbidding the teaching of evolution from a school's curriculum if creationism wasn't also taught, one was robbing children of an important element of their scientific education.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> ** [|Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)] **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> //Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)// was another landmark decision regarding the freedom of religion. The Good News Club, a private religious group, was denied the ability to meet afterhours in the Milford Central school building while other non-religious groups were allowed to hold meetings there. The Court held that by prohibiting The Good News Club from meeting in regard to its religious orientation, Milford Central School was committing viewpoint discrimination, which is in violation of the First Amendment.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%;"> __**Religious Freedom and the Pledge of Allegiance**__

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> Before 1954, the words “under God” did not exist in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, in 1954, during McCarthyism and the scare of communism, [|the words were signed into law] and thus officially added to the Pledge. [|According to the NY Times], it was an attempt to separate us from the “godless Soviets.” However, the addition of these two words has led to much controversy. Many opponents of these words claim that they violate one’s freedom of religion, or their freedom not to choose a religion. Supporters of the inclusion of these words in the Pledge of Allegiance claim that the Pledge holds no religious undertones and is merely a patriotic salute to our country.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> In 2004, a hotly contested case entitled //[|Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow]//was argued. Michael Newdow filed suit against his daughter’s school district, claiming that by requiring the Pledge of Allegiance in classrooms, his daughter was forced to hear the words “under God” recited, and thus the school district was in violation of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses set forth by the Constitution. The Magistrate Court heard the case originally and had declared that the Pledge was constitutional and dismissed the complaint. However, on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision, ruling in favor of Newdow, stating that the Pledge of Allegiance indeed violated the Establishment Clause. The case then went to the Supreme Court.

<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;"> This is where things get a little “iffy”. The Supreme Court essentially avoided hearing the case by invalidating Newdow's standing on a legal technicality. Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that since Michael Newdow does not have official legal custody of his daughter (his ex-wife does, via a court order), he does not have proper standing to sue on this issue. Therefore, the Court declined to review the case, and reversed the decision made earlier by the Ninth Circuit.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> **//<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">“ <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">I do not believe that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge converts its recital into a "religious exercise" of the sort described in Lee. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase "under God" is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">….” --Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) Decision //**

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In 2010, it was revealed that Newdow had lost his second attempt to have “Under God” removed from the Pledge. [|According to this article] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">, Newdow had lost in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision, where just six years prior, they had ruled in his favor. The reason remains the same: that the phrase “Under God” simply serves to unite our nation on some of the ideals upon which it was founded. The 2-1 decision is important, as it shows that many people are still divided on this hotly contested issue.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="color: black; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">As mentioned earlier, students are not required to standup or salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance, as a result of a 1943 Supreme Court decision entitled //[|West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette]//. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">In 2005, [|a high school student was awarded over $30,000] after being berated and embarrassed by his teacher for refusing to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%;"> __**Religious Freedom and Higher Education**__

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Institutions of higher education intend to promote a holistic atmosphere for all students who attend the university. Most of the time, this holistic atmosphere also includes the growth of one’s spirituality. However, there is never one set “mold” of students—each student has his or her own individual background and belief system. Public universities often allow individuals to exercise their First Amendment rights by allowing the students to display, promote, or worship their chosen religion (or lack thereof) in open forums. However, the following question is often raised: How much “free exercise” can be granted to a student or organization before a university accidentally oversteps the boundaries established by the Establishment Clause?

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> There are numerous court cases affiliated with higher education in which a university has denied the First Amendment religious rights of a student or organization, citing that by allowing the student or organization to participate in these events, the university themselves would have violated the Establishment Clause. One example is that of //[|Widmar v. Vincent (1981)]//. In //Widmar//, a religious group had attempted to use a traditionally open forum for worship and was denied for the reason mentioned above. The student group sued and won, with the Court stating that by prohibiting the use of the open forum for this particular group, while also allowing other organizations to use the forum for similar but secular purposes, the university was discriminating based on the sectarian content of the organization, which was unconstitutional.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> A second case is very similar: in //[|Rosenberger v. Rector and the Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)]//, the university had refused to fund a Christian-affiliated newspaper on the basis that by doing so, the university would have violated the Establishment Clause set forth by the First Amendment. However, the students sued, stating that by refusing to fund this paper, the university violated the student’s Free Exercise rights. The Court determined that UVA, by funding similar (but not religious) newspapers, was essentially discriminating against the organization as a result of the organization’s viewpoint, thus violating the organization’s right to freely exercise their religion.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%;"> __**Controversies With Religion Freedom on Campus**__

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Unfortunately, it happens often that a student, non-student, or organization’s right to free speech and free expression of religion is suppressed. Often, it is because those who suppress these speakers’ speeches are uninformed of the rights of those who are speaking. For example: In the following video, a campus preacher at Kentucky State University has his rights infringed upon when he is asked to leave the campus for upsetting students with his evangelical speech about Christianity.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> media type="youtube" key="TrBt9kBnKtM" height="349" width="425"

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> When the preacher begins speaking in front of the student union, a campus police officer walks up and asks to speak to him privately. The officer informs the preacher that the preacher was told by the administration that he was supposed to be speaking on the practice football field, which is a location about half a mile away and completely away from any student traffic. The preacher stated that he had rejected the administration’s request, stating that it violated his First Amendment right to speak freely on the basis of “time, place, and manner restrictions”. By placing the preacher all the way away from student traffic, in a practice football field, the administration was essentially suppressing his right to free speech. The preacher asserts that this is a public university, and since he was at the student union and not in front of any classroom buildings, he was not robbing any students of their education experience.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Eventually, the preacher is allowed to begin speaking again, but once a crowd forms that verbally disagrees with the preacher’s intended message, the police officers return and forcibly remove him from campus, violating the preacher’s constitutional right to speak freely about his religion. The preacher protests, stating “Hecklers have no veto power over my speech… The unpopularity of my speech does not override the ability for me to speak.” However, the police officers refuse to listen, and remove him from campus anyway.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> In another video, a notoriously popular evangelical preacher, Brother Micah, actually has water poured on him as a result of his controversial subject manner.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> media type="youtube" key="Har3rzxwaVc" height="349" width="425"

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Unfortunately, many students do not understand that even though his speech is controversial and he may anger many students with his speech, Brother Micah’s words are completely protected via the First Amendment and thus should not be subject to this kind of ridicule.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> In September 2008, UC Berkeley police officers arrested multiple Native American students attempting a prayer ritual on a Native American site that was being torn down by the university. In short, the Native American students and community members were attempting to lay tobacco down in a large grove of trees that were being uprooted by the university to make room for a new sports complex. This grove of trees also contained an ancient Indian burial ground where UC-Berkeley anthropologists have found 18 human remains to date. In order to protest the uprooting of this area, more than a dozen students protested by climbing the trees and refusing to come down. This resulted in a 649-day protest, delaying the building of the sports complex by two years. Initial court rulings allowed the protesters to stay in the trees, but after two years, the court finally ruled that the sports complex can be built and that the university may remove the protesters from the trees.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> After the protesters were removed, Native American students were trying to complete their prayer ritual and were not allowed to go anywhere near the grove of trees where their burial ground was located. They were not even allowed near the fences that were built around the area (depending on which side of the story you read, the building of the fences were either to protect the protesters from rowdy football fans on game days or, according to the other side of the story, to assist the university in stopping the protesters from receiving aid from supporters on the ground).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> media type="youtube" key="nSbbI1ut__s" height="349" width="425"

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> You may read the entire story about the plight of the Native American students and the university's destruction of their sacred ground [|here.] The wikipedia article on the Tree Sitter protest may be found [|here].

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 150%;"> __**Summary**__

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> As future student affairs administrators, it is imperative that we continue to educate students on the First Amendment and the rights of other individuals. All of the positive changes of our nation can be attributed to the right of individuals to stand up for what they believe in. Controversies on college campuses, especially those involving the First Amendment, are often the spark in students' minds that lead them to question their inner morals and beliefs. This inner dissonance leads to passionate debates about the subject, which pave the way for compromises, acceptance, and understanding of the issue from both angles.This understanding eventually opens the door for positive change, whether it be in ourselves, in the community, or the country at large. One must continue to educate students to have an open mind and stand up for what they believe in-- for even if one is standing alone, one has the constitutional right to fight for what they believe in. The United States: one nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for **all**-- and let us never forget it.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> //"You must be the change you want to see in the world//." --Mahatma Gandhi