Brad Hirschfield writes in his article Taking God Public about two different cases involving public displays of religion that were brought to the Supreme Court. One involves a case of whether or not to allow a monument of the Seven Aphorisms, a part of the Summum religion, to be displayed in a Utah park. In this park also stands a monument of the Ten Commandments. Hirschfield questions when lawmakers have the right to decide which religion is displayed over another. He claims that cases that allow the court to make the distinction between which religions are accepted or not threaten religious freedom. The other case presented in this article is one where a coach in New Jersey prayed with his team before games. The court determined that his praying was illegal. Hirschfield supports the decision, and says that people who have a significant amount of power in the lives of others should not be allowed to promote religion. Another point made in the article is that it is not the government’s place to make the country religion free. Hirschfield claims it is not a good idea to protect people’s rights by taking away those of others.
Hirschfield is contradictory in some points of his paper. He thinks that the decisions made are right, however he says that religious displays should not be illegal. A lot of people struggle with this issue, and there is no consistent way to determine if a religious display should be allowed. Some displays, such as one at the Texas capitol are allowed based on historical value. This does not seem to be a sure way to determine when a display should be allowed. Most cases can be argued from a historical perspective. In Mark Noll’s book, God and Race in American Politics, Noll shows how two different sides of a battle interpreted religion as favoring their position. The First Amendment is being used in the same way in today’s battles involving public displays of religion. The amendment is interpreted by both sides in order to fit their agenda. Is the court prohibiting freedom of speech when they rule against displays of religion? By allowing religious acts to occur, is the court promoting religion? Is the issue freedom of religion or freedom of speech?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Interesting questions Mallory. I believe that in the US we really do have a freedom of religion. Of course, it could be argued that we are a more Christian based country, but I don't usually see the government imposing a specific religion on the public. The incident of the praying coach is understandable, because he was imposing his religion onto his team, but it is not an issue of the government's support of one religion over others.
Both you and the columnist raise interesting points about this issue. I feel that the issue is primarily freedom of speech. At least, that's what the Summum group argued, which is why they lost their lawsuit. I agree with Hirschfield that the court's decision in this case is perfectly acceptable. While we can all see the hypocrisy in the city lawmaker's decision to exclude the seven aphorisms from their park, the Summum leaders simply argued based on the wrong principle.
The case of the coach is a little less clear cut, in my opinion. Clearly, as the coach represents a public high school and is paid by the state, and also exhibits a significant amount of influence on his team, as Hirschfield mentions, he cannot be permitted to pray with the team before games. But if he were to offer a prayer for those who wish to join him, would that be permissible? Are state officials allowed to endorse a particular religion? Is it even possible to do so without violating the first amendment's establishment clause?
If the coach is paid by the state then I can see how big the problem was with him leading a prayer, because it signifies that he is representing the state. Just my two cents there.
Another point I'd like to bring up is that people are of course free to BELIEVE whatever they'd like in this country, the problem is that believing the mandates of a certain religion doesn't necessarily justify acting upon those beliefs - especially if it's against the law. While I don't see how the action in the first case Mallory presented inhibited anyone else's freedom, this argument could have come into play.
There can often be a fine line between religious freedom and religious imposition. In the United States, we do have freedom of religion. We can believe and practice the religion of our choice. The instances concerning the park and the coach are not instances where religious freedom has been curbed. Instead, the Court ruled in such a way as to limit the role of the government in supporting one religion over another. The individuals affected may see their religious beliefs as being suppressed. In reality, the Court was simply ruling in such a way as to protect other religious groups’ realms of non-interference.
I agree with the columnist on his opinion of the Summum case: on the freedom of speech issue that they used in court, Summum clearly did not deserve to win the case. However in terms of freedom of religion, I think the city council was wrong to allow the Ten Commandments but not allow the Summum monument; in this case, it appears quite clear that the city council was favoring one religion over another which I don't believe is constitutional. On the issue with the coach, though, I disagree a little with the columnist. I can see why people would have a problem with this, with the coach being a state employee, but I don't feel that the coach was necessarily imposing his religion onto others. Any player who did not wish to participate could easily have not done the prayer.
The questions brought up in the comments are all very interesting to consider when thinking about freedom of religion. I especially like Andrew's question of making participation in the prayer a choice for those who want to join. I think this should be acceptable, based on the Free Exercise Clause. I also think Andi's comment puts another perspective into the argument. There is a debate with religion and politics that says if the government was too accomodating to religious practices, then they would have to exempt some from laws that went against their beliefs. By not allowing the coach to lead a prayer, the government was preventing the imposition of a religion onto those who may have had different beliefs. In the case of Summum, do you think the outcome would have been different if they had argued their case as freedom of religion?
You mention two very interesting terms, and that I think should not be together in the same sentence, freedom and religion .. because the religion is based on fear amongst the people to a higher being, like generic viagra ... beyond anything
Post a Comment