Where to Draw the Line between Church and State

One only has to glance at a few historical landmarks, monuments, and architectures around the country before it becomes obvious that the United States of America is greatly influenced by religion. City Halls, courthouses, and libraries around the nation have collected an assortment of religious symbols. Some are even carved into the walls, piers, and staircases of these magnificent structures. Prayers in public school; an oath before God to tell the truth in court; the use of a bible as the president takes the Oath of Office; and an invocation on the day of business in the House of Representatives are just a few examples of religious rituals that is conducted by state and federal representatives. While the “land of the free” was obviously established on Christian beliefs, the founding fathers of the United States did not intend for government to have a role in any specific religion. It is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights, specifically in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“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.”

Even with all the Christian symbols and traditions embedded in government agencies, Americans have held true to their constitutional commitment. Over 200 years after the writing the Bill of Rights, Congress has yet to establish a law that requires the people to respect one religion over another. Yet, others argue that the mere appearance of preferring one religion over another among government legislatures indirectly puts pressure on those who do not share that faith, regardless whether any law demanding respect to a religion has been made.

Over the years, such symbols and rituals have been challenged as unconstitutional.  In 1962 for example, prayer in public school, in accordance to the Establishment Clause was determined as unconstitutional. This ruling forced states and their public schools to adopt an equally neutral approach to religion. In 1963, the Supreme Court held that Bible readings and other religious activities are prohibited in public school sponsored events. They further ruled that any practice sponsored within state run schools, or other public and state sponsored activities must adhere to the Lemon Test, which requires such activities to (1) have a secular purpose; (2) must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and (3) must not result in an excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Since 1963 however, the line between church and state continues to be reexamined as various cases are raised before the Supreme Court. Questions in regards to whether God should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance; whether the words “so help me God” should be removed from court procedures; and whether religious symbols such as statues and carvings of the Ten Commandments should be removed from court buildings (regardless of its historical value) can easily cloud one’s judgment on where the line is drawn. In recent years, questions about whether Christmas trees are acceptable in public viewing or uttering the words “Merry Christmas” should be a reason for a job dismissal have become dominate debate topics. Topics such as these have escalated into the private sectors as well.

With such controversies constantly debated even in cases where the long arm of government does not reach, one has to question whether this is less about defining the line between government and religion; and more about a war on religion itself. But when Speaker of the House, John Boehner endorsed an Imam of the Muslim Brotherhood to give the opening prayer in the House of Representatives, the line between church and state was undoubtedly and undeniably crossed. That is, if all government representatives are held to the same standards that are imposed on public school since the 1962 and 1963 Supreme Court rulings.

            While there is an American and Christian outrage that Congress would tolerate a Muslim prayer on the House floor, a religion that has close ties to the very same terrorists that has repeatedly attacked our nation and slaughtered thousands of Americans; I am going to play the Devil’s advocate. Although I personally feel that when Congress bowed to an Imam of the Muslim Brotherhood, a man who has close connections to the known terrorist, ISIS; and when they participated in a Muslim prayer, a religion that has been seized and distorted by religious extremists and terrorists on Capitol Hill that they not only demonstrated submissiveness, but they ultimately betrayed America; I am going to argue that the problem is not whether the Muslim religion should be honored by Congress, but whether religion itself should be on government property and/or entangled in government procedures.

            Since the Supreme Court has ruled that because public schools and its employees are government representatives, they must be natural when it comes to religion.  Since the 1962 and 1963 rulings established that state and federal representatives can neither participate in religious rituals such as Bible discussions and prayers, nor possess any religious cryptograms, such jewelry with a religious symbol or religious images in the workplace, and that displaying such conduct and items are violations of the constitution; it would seem logical that displaying any religious practices on the House floor is also a blatant disregard for the Bill of Rights. Since the Chief Justices stipulated that freedom of religion and freedom of speech only apply to private citizens, and that state and federal employees, such as public school employees can only exercise their First Amendment rights on their own private time and away from the workplace; I hold that the same laws apply to highest offices of government. After all, if the line between church and state is crossed when a small town teacher wears a crucifix in the presence of the students, how much more is the line violated when Congress endorses a religion by honoring a Shiite and prays on national television? Although I do not personally believe that merely showing preference to one religion over another is a breach of anyone’s constitutional rights, I will argue that because the Supreme Court has applied this definition to state run schools and its employees, the ruling should also apply to all state and federal agencies and its representatives. I will argue that those who we elect to represent the people, those who hold the highest positions in the country should be forced to obey the same policies that are established for those in lower standing positions— starting with the Constitution of the United States.

Sandie Hart

Prosper, Texas

References

Essex, Nathan L. School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders 5^th Ed. Pearson. Saddle River, 2012.

Legal Informational Institute. First Amendment. (2014). http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Top Right News. U.S. House of Representatives Bows to Allah as Muslim Imam Delivers ‘Prayer’. November 16, 2014. http://toprightnews.com/?p=7241

Wikipedia. School Prayer. November 17, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer