Mark Movsesian covers a recent circuit court ruling which could turn out to be “a major Establishment Clause case.” In Doe v. Elmbrook Elementary School, handed down on July 23, a panel of judges (including the well-known Richard Posner) drew interesting distinctions which may affect what constitutes “proselytizing” by a religion. In the view of the court:
…the decision revives a theme that appeared in the first religious symbols case, Stone v. Graham, the Court’s 1980 decision forbidding the placement of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms. The Court worried that the Commandments might have a proselytizing effect on impressionable students; even though the students were not required to do anything in response, the mere presence of the Commandments might encourage veneration. Here, the Seventh Circuit emphasized the presence of a large Latin cross and evangelical materials in the pews and in the sanctuary’s lobby. Unlike in Stone, of course, the state was not directly responsible for these things; but the state had chosen to hold the ceremonies in a space where these “proselytizing elements” were present.
Read more of Prof. Movsesian’s (quite accessible) analysis at the St. John’s Center for Law and Religion.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:36 am
My instant reaction is to agree with the dissenters in this case, although I do wonder what the reaction might be (of the general public, at least) if the venue for the graduation ceremony were a mosque or some other house of worship in which Christians and Jews might feel uncomfortable.
One commenter on Mirror of Justice noted that Jews are forbidden to enter a church.
Those of us who grew up Christian (and even many of us who didn’t) are so accustomed to Christian symbols that we think nothing of them. And I am also afraid that many Christians feel non-Christians in America are living in a Christian country, and whatever problems non-Christians have with that, they should just get over them. But of course, religious liberty in the United States isn’t just for Christians.
July 25th, 2012 | 10:24 am
Shall all the grave markers at Arlington be replaced with “non-denominational” markers?
July 25th, 2012 | 2:35 pm
As I remarked elsewhere, it seems to me that religious liberty was the winner in this case. Since neither the high school nor the church were in any way trying to promote religion, their religious freedom was not at stake in the ruling. It was only the objecting parents and students who saw a religious issue here, and the court decided in their favor. Just sticking to this one case alone, without regard to possible ramifications of the decision as a precedent, it seems like this was an overwhelming victory for religious liberty.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
My instant reaction is to agree with the dissenters in this case, although I do wonder what the reaction might be (of the general public, at least) if the venue for the graduation ceremony were a mosque or some other house of worship in which Christians and Jews might feel uncomfortable.
I wonder if you have similar concerns about Christians forced to endure school-sponsored humanist displays.
Last I checked, not only did teachers feel perfectly comfortable in forcing their kids to participate in pro-gay activities from a humanist standpoint, they even felt within their rights to wear t-shirts promoting particular candidates in the classroom.
But I guess it’s different when humanism is involved, because there’s no God so therefore people aren’t “proselytizing”, eh? (Is that how the logic goes?)
July 26th, 2012 | 1:07 am
“I wonder if you have similar concerns about Christians forced to endure school-sponsored humanist displays.
Last I checked, not only did teachers feel perfectly comfortable in forcing their kids to participate in pro-gay activities from a humanist standpoint, they even felt within their rights to wear t-shirts promoting particular candidates in the classroom.”
I doo. I believe teachers should be flatly barred from promoting particular candidates in their classroom.
I don’t know what a pro-gay activity is and who ahd been forced to participate, however.
July 27th, 2012 | 8:44 am
J Bob
Your point about grave markers is an interesting one.
Here, in Scotland one occasionally sees crosses in municipal cemeteries, but never in kirk yards, although I know of one, where the top slab of the old pre-Reformation altar table, with its five deeply incised crosses, forms part of the pavement of the lychgate.
All the old merket crosses have had their crosses removed, to avoid offending protestant sensibilities. The shaft, often with an empty niche, where the image of a patron saint would once have stood, survives, usually surmounted with a ball or, sometimes, a lion or a unicorn couchant, holding a shield with the municipal arms. I have even seen that wretched architectural cliché, the acanthus bud
July 27th, 2012 | 4:31 pm
I don’t know what a pro-gay activity is and who ahd been forced to participate, however.
Well, the most obvious example would be kids who are taken to lesbian wedding field trips as part of history class, and being taught humanist beliefs about “what this means” as if humanist beliefs were fact, rather than one perspective among many competing “narratives”.
Or the use of books like “Heather Has Two Mommies”.
Or promoting the idea that it’s a blow against injustice to vote a same-sex couple “prom king and queen”.
Or any other display that is designed as if “gay rights” were already settled and non-controversial, instead of recognizing that the perspective (“narrative”) presented by gay rights advocates is only one narrative, not “the one true correct” narrative.
Here is a question: if the Mt. Soledad Cross is inappropriate because it’s associated with a religion, even though some people value it for historical reasons, not religious reasons, then why doesn’t the same logic hold true with Unitarian Universalist beliefs and humanism? That is, why are humanist beliefs automatically deemed “secular” even though they are also the officially sanctioned beliefs of a recognized religion? Why should it be that a thing is “automatically” deemed secular just because atheists embrace it?
If we have the obligation to refrain from using government from imposing a particular religious viewpoint on those who do not share that viewpoint, then why do Unitarian Universalist get treated according to a different standard, just because atheists also hold those same beliefs?
Remember that I am not talking about discriminating against gays just because they are gay – that is, for that which is innate. I am talking about siding on the question of what does and does not constitute appropriate attitudes and beliefs toward sexuality, marriage, and family – privileging one religion’s beliefs over other religions.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact