American Constituitional Law Freedom of Religion

+-------------Cursor Parking Lot —---------+ I I I I I I +---------------------------------------------------+ 1.) The Court has encountered the problem of defining the concept of a religious belief many times. How did the attitude of the Court change in the course of time? What are the major difficulties in defining religion? See especially Freeman's article. Some believe no definition of religion was provided because the Founders believed a strictly theistic definition was the obvious choice, while others think that perhaps the Founders were being purposefully vague.1 Whatever the Founders’ reasoning may have been, the limited language of the Religion Clauses provides little guidance regarding what constitutes a religion deserving of protection, which has caused this area of constitutional discourse to become “a conceptual disaster area.” given the inherently enigmatic nature of religion. There are a number of difficulties that make any attempt at defining religion fraught with uncertainty and complications. The most notable of these concern whether sincerity of belief should be a part of defining religion for purposes of exemption from a law of general applicability; how a court could go about assessing sincerity; whether a belief which the holder acknowledges is irreligious can qualify for religious protections; what criteria distinguish religion from sincerely held secular beliefs (if this distinction is even necessary); and whether a static definition of religion is possible at all. Courts focused on traditional religion, theological perspective, But then broadened this to include not only the traditional religious beliefs 2.) One of the key terms of free exercise jurisprudence is "accommodation". What is the justification behind accommodation of religious beliefs? Can it be reconciled with the requirement of neutrality? Or can excessive accommodation amount to Establishment? Some authors argue that the free exercise jurisprudence of the Court Prefers sincerely held secular beliefs. Do you agree? Can these beliefs be protected by the right to privacy? For a broad interpretation of the concept of privacy see Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833, 852 (1992). See also Dworkin's position. Accommodation means that places like schools and work people can practice their religion. Specifically more people who practice the lesser mainstream religions. Establishment: essentially the idea that the state cannot prompt a religion or establish a state religion. E.g. Church of England. Really about state not sponsoring, providing funding for religion. Others say a bit broader I.e. Lemon test, if a middle school puts a nativity scene up around Christmas on their front lawn. In Pennsylvania, King Dante says never be a nativity scene. Could excessive accommodation amount to establishment? It can be difficult to draw the line with accommodations. In order to promote secularism and neutrality, ECHR, Dolob, impressionable students, was banned from wearing a hijab as this could be seen as indoctrination. If manifestations of religion are permitted, could that be seen as state particularly permissing or validating particular religions? 3.) The term "neutrality" is also often evoked as a general guide with regard to the church state relationship. Neutrality is a relational concept. Among whom should the state be neutral? Does neutrality apply to the (i) motives, (ii) reasons or (iii) consequences of a challenged Act? Is neutrality a coherent and desirable normative ideal? What is the justification behind neutrality? governmental neutrality—a principle that generally forbids the. government from treating people differently on the basis of their. religious beliefs. Is the USA secular? Secular in practice. However, strides towards a dominance or preference to Christianity, many legal issues bring rise to Christian beliefs. E.g. homosexuality or abortion laws. With the use of originalism, many justices revert rulings to their own political or religious biases. Should cross necklaces be allowed if hijabs aren’t? I believe all personal manifestations of religion should be allowed provided it doesn’t cause harm to others. Claims to be secular but shows an obvious lean towards christianity, for example, trends show that if you wish to be on supreme court, more likely if you were a practicing catholic. 4.) Explain the essence of the Lemon test. This test dominated the doctrinal framework of establishment cases for a long time. Did the Court man age to stick to the test? Did you find alternative tests to assess the constitutionality of an Act? Could you discover similarities between the doctrinal framework of the Establishment Clause and the Equal Protection Clause? What impact does the 2022 decision in Kennedy v Bremerton School District have on the Lemon test? The Supreme Court often uses the three-pronged Lemon test when it evaluates whether a law or governmental activity violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Establishment of religion cases tend to involve government aid to religion, such as aid to parochial schools, or the introduction of religious observances into the public sector, such as school prayer. The Court measures the aid or program against the prongs of the test. The Lemon test, considered aptly named by its critics, derives its name from the landmark decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). Lemon represented the refinement of a test the Supreme Court announced in Walz v. Tax Commission (1970). Both justices and legal analysts have attacked the Lemon test. As the Court became more conservative, the move to accommodation gained momentum. In Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Court considered whether a nondenominational prayer could be offered at a high school graduation ceremony. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist argued for a nonpreferentialist test, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor advocated a religious endorsement test, and Justice Antonin Scalia continued to advance a noncoercive test; however, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion in Lee, joined those who supported the preservation of the Lemon test. Many analysts had predicted the demise of Lemon. The repeated criticisms, modifications, and failure to apply the Lemon test in some establishment cases, in addition to other tests used by the justices in the establishment clause area, have largely undermined its effectiveness. In upholding the right of a football coach of a public school to offer after-game prayers at mid-field in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), Justice Neil Gorsuch (whose opinion was joined by five other justices) argued that the court had long abandoned the Lemon test, which he criticized as being too abstract and ahistorical, for an approach that emphasised “reference to historical practices and understandings.” Three dissenting justices, led by Justice Sotomayor, believed that the three-part Lemon test was still useful. Lemon test: - All government action must have a secular purpose Must have a principle or primary effect that doesn’t advance or inhibit religion Cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion Excessive entanglement, excessive involvement? Town of Greece v Galloway 572 US 565, town opened its public meetings by reciting a prayer. The clergy were largely from Christian faiths, open up to different faiths and more diversity within the prayer rather than get rid of the prayers altogether. Is this excessive entanglement? The start of what could snowball, once the government gets involved in religion, might force people to be more religious and could be seen as coercive. If you banned the town prayers, would that be inhibiting free practice? Flip it on its head, if there was a group getting together and largely the attendees were Christian but the committee was made up of practicing Muslims, would all of the Christian attendees want to listen to muslim prayers? Christians aren’t opressed as a majority and can’t really be discriminated against lol. 5.) Some authors claim that the Establishment Clause gives preferential treatment to secular beliefs. Discuss this proposition. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England. Over the last few decades, there have been three competing views of the meaning of the Establishment Clause held by members of the Supreme Court. One, favored by the liberal justices, is that the Establishment Clause should be understood as creating a wall separating church and state. An alternative view, favoured by the conservative justices, is that there should be “accommodation” between religion and government. Under this view, the government violates the Establishment Clause only if it creates a church, coerces religious participation, or discriminates among religions in giving financial benefits. A third position is that the government acts unconstitutionally if it endorses religion or a specific religion. The chapter argues that separation is the best view of the Establishment Clause and applies this to prayers at government activities, religious symbols on government property, and government aid to religious institutions. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) The test of religious belief within the meaning of the exemption in § 6(j) is whether it is a sincere and meaningful belief occupying in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by the God of those admittedly qualified for the exemption. Pp. 380 U. S. 173-180. Moral belief meaning he couldn’t fight in war, but the exemption does not cover those who oppose war from a merely personal moral code, nor those who decide that war is wrong on the basis of essentially political, sociological or economic considerations, rather than religious belief. P. 380 U. S. 173. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) The State's interest in universal education is not totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on other fundamental rights, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the religious upbringing of their children. Pp. 406 U. S. 213-215 Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015) Under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), prison authorities may not prevent an inmate from growing a beard for religious reasons, as long as the individual's belief is sincere and he or she would face a choice between being punished and violating a key principle of his or her faith. Moreover, the law's protections are not limited to beliefs that are shared by all members of a religion Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) , 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. Notes: Very tricky case, if it was swapped and someone asked me to create a cake about something my morals don’t agree with I'd refuse it. But obviously it is discrimination but they also have the protection of their religion. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984) The city of Pawtucket, R.I., annually erects a Christmas display in a park owned by a nonprofit organization and located in the heart of the city's shopping district. The display includes, in addition to such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, and a banner that reads "SEASONS GREETINGS," a creche or Nativity scene, which has been part of this annual display for 40 years or more. Respondents brought an action in Federal District Court, challenging the inclusion of the creche in the display on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court upheld the challenge and permanently enjoined the city from including the creche in the display. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. 565 (2014) , 572 U.S. 565 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer.[2][3] The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.[4] They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town,[5] and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.[6] On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of the Town of Greece, holding that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.[7] Seminar Notes - What is religion? Concept of a being that is greater than oneself. Shared ideal. Concept being broad means it promotes inclusivity. But this could also be viewed as a negative. European courts, whether veganism can be protected as a religion. ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...’ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … - Freeman Article We shouldn't spend time defining religion, we should just accept its meaning in society and the meaning to the person.