The paper discusses the correctness of the holding by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2012) and reversing the decision of the District Court that a Town Board's practice of beginning its meetings by an opening prayer violated the Establishment Clause and postulates that the decision is correct on the facts of the case. The Establishment Clause is contained in the First Amendment to the constitution providing for religious freedom and prohibiting Congress from making any law for the establishment of any. In other words, there is no the state cannot mandate the observance of a particular religion practice.
The plaintiffs challenged the Town Board’s practice before the District Court and the court rejected the claim through a summary judgment in the Respondent's favor holding that the Establishment Clause did not per se foreclose denominational prayers and that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the town's prayer practice had the effect of establishing the Christian religion. The District Court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge by holding that there was no credible evidence that town employees intentionally excluded representatives of particular faiths with a view to establish Christianity and that the Establishment Clause did not per se ban denominational prayers. The Circuit court noted that between the relevant period of 1999 and June 2010, out of the 120 of the 130 recorded prayers, approximately tw thirds had Christian references and the remaining one third also invoked such Biblical theistic concepts as "God of all creation," "Heavenly Father," and God's "kingdom of Heaven" during which the gathered people did certain acts like bowing their heads, sayi...
... middle of paper ...
...nton v. Caldor (1985), a Connecticut law allowing a holiday for observance of Sabbath was held to be against the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test as its primary effect was to promote Judaism which observed Sabbath.
From the Galloway decision as well as the other precedents cited above, the litmus appears to be the effect and not the intent of a particular law or act to determine its validity vis-à-vis the Establishment Clause. It is for this reason that the Circuit Court stated that it Establishment Clause cases like Galloway can be fact-intensive which defy exact legal formulas. Therefore, the broad principles identified above are to be applied to the particular facts of each case. For the reasons elaborated by the court, the Circuit court in Galloway therefore appears to be in order.
Works Cited
Galloway v. Town of Greece, 681 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2012)
...gain ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause. These cases include Murray v. Baltimore School Board, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Stone v. Graham. It also set the grounds for the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which set up the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a religious function is Constitutional or not.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow case is a litigation that was brought by an atheist father seeking for a determination of the constitutionality of the practice of recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public school students since it contained the phrase “under God.” The Supreme Court had two major issues to determine i.e. whether Newdow had the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the practice and school board’s policy and whether the phrase “under God” was an infringement of the Establishment Clause of the country’s constitution. In its ruling, the Supreme Court argued that Michael Newdow did not have the legal standing to file the litigation since he was a non-custodial parent.
In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the place that religion holds in democracy. “Religion, by teaching man his relationship to God, gives the individual a sense of his own dignity and teaches him to respect himself by respecting his neighbor's. Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows. International good faith, a sister of democracy, springs from the will of civilized nations of men to respect the rights and liberties of other nations of men. In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black). This case occurred after Roosevelt’s presidency, and left a significant impact on the American government, as it made clear that religion had no place in the government (Hugo Black). In recent years, a larger disconnect between the church and the American court systems has been created with the nationwide
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
The Supreme Court has adopted a standard of neutrality to satisfy the Establishment Clause stating: neither federal or state government can enact laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another, and neither can force nor influence a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947). The means that the Martin County Board cannot actively endorse any one particular religion over another and also cannot restrict any one particular religion. See Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 794, 795 (1983). It must remain religiously neutral. Id. at 795. The Martin County Board’s meeting practice of offering a prayer before its board meetings violates the Establishment Clause because they provided strong sectarian references in their invocations, endorsed Christianity, and coerced those in attendance to participate in the prayers.
Wood, James E, Jr. "Religious Human Rights and a Democratic State." Journal of Church and State 4(2004):739. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
The case Engel v. Vitale in 1962 decided that school prayer is unconstitutional. With this case, it was pointed out that the students were to "voluntarily" recite the following prayer: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country." The court ruled that this rule was unconstitutional according to the First Amendment's "establishment clause," which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
The religious freedom of the country was threatened by the Employment Division v. Smith case because this case took away the qualification that you prove that the law against the religious act be of compelling interest to the state. The RFRA was issued to reinstate the qualifications for laws against religious freedoms. The changes this Act has brought are already significant. During the three years prior to RFRA -- between the time that the Smith decision was handed down (1990) and RFRA was enacted (1993) -- there have been approximately 60 cases which have relied on the Smith decision. All of them were decided against the free exercise or First Amendment claims.
Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion, or the prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. Often times men who have no religious value will quote the first portion of this text without considering the latter part. There are no laws that are voluntary, but law is the binding virtue that casts it's judgment upon those who break it. All laws are derived by the moral virtue of natural rights. In the case of Engel v. Vitale is no expectation. The Establishment clause has been used to violate the First Amendment by establishing laws that prohibit any institution with a tax break, the right to express their religion even against the will of the majority. The First Amendment rightly prevents
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
The argument over the separation of church and state has been an ongoing debate without a conclusion, and has always been a topic to speak on. Many people have strong opinions for or against the separation. While some believe that prayer in school is beneficial to the development of children and of their faith, others believe that it could completely criticize their faith by not giving the student the option to explore their beliefs. In the “Resistance to Civil Government” by Henry David Thoreau, the author is passionate about allowing people to beli...
To have prayer in the public school system is against the idea of separation of church and state. The state should not institute school prayer because the public schools are for education, not a place where religion should be taught (Gaylor, 1995, p. 1). The state should not force every child to say a prayer in the classroom because not everyone believes...