is the courT protecting the rights of the faithful or giving them favorable treatment.
The New York Times DailyPoadcastr has an excellent story about the recent trend of the Supreme Court to give preference to religious groups. It a good story and offers a glimpse into a new case facing the Surpeme that concens foster care in Pennsylvania.
Fulton v Philidelphia
Here are a few storeis about the foster care case (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia.)
|
|
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Prayer
Town of Greece V Galloway
The Supreme Court is deciding the limits of prayer and the First Amendment based on a case that started in Greece, New York. Does prayer have any role at government meetings? The plaintiff, Galloway, says no. The Court is hearing arguments now and many think their decision "could shape the legal landscape on this issue for decades to come."
In addition to the clip above from PBS Religion & Ethics, you can read a good background story about the issue from the New York Times. And Adam Liptak also has good story in the New York Times here.
Here is another background story from the PBS News Hour and below that a news story from Newsy.
These two clips, both from PBS summarize the Court's decision to allow prayer in a town hall meeting. You can also read the New York Times story.
In addition to the clip above from PBS Religion & Ethics, you can read a good background story about the issue from the New York Times. And Adam Liptak also has good story in the New York Times here.
Here is another background story from the PBS News Hour and below that a news story from Newsy.
These two clips, both from PBS summarize the Court's decision to allow prayer in a town hall meeting. You can also read the New York Times story.
|
|
Wyoming Tribe Wins Right To Hunt 2 Bald Eagles
Freedom of religion court cases are a good way to teach students about Native American spirituality.
For example, the 2012 decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to allow the Northern Arapaho Tribe to kill two bald eagles for religious use allowed me to discuss the importance of tribal rituals and how they are colliding with conservationists today. Students read this NPR story about the decision, summarized the issues on paper, and then debated the two sides. Many conservationists opposed the permit because bald eagles are an endangered species. After discussing the issues, I showed the students the fifteen minute Ted Talk below by Aaron Huey about Native Americans. Huey is a photo journalist who has contributed to National Geographic. Huey offers a sobering timeline of broken treaties and statistics that show a people living like they are in a third world country. For example, seventy percent of young Native Americans drop out of high school and men have a life span of only forty-eight years. |
Here are some more resources the 2012 bald eagle case.
|
Abercrombie and Hijab
|
Other stories about the case
|
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
|
More on the case
|
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer
|
More stoies about the case
|
Three Cases on Prayer and School
The Washington Post wrote about the following three cases, Engle V. Vital, Abbington V. Scempt, an McCulllom V. the Board of Education "tried to define Christianity as a moral alternative to Communism. One way to make sure Americans remained a strong moral alternative was to allow prayer in public school. Christian prayer, they argued, would build moral character and define American citizens as God-fearing in contrast to an atheist Soviet Union. That narrative played out in all three cases."
The Post Continues: These cases demonstrate that the majority cannot trample on minority rights. The majority might be Protestant but subject non-Protestants to Christian prayers. Each of the cases—Vitale, McCullom, and Abington all tried to suggest that the majority should rule. And some figured they made it fair when they added an opt out rule.
Questions for student to consdier.
The Post Continues: These cases demonstrate that the majority cannot trample on minority rights. The majority might be Protestant but subject non-Protestants to Christian prayers. Each of the cases—Vitale, McCullom, and Abington all tried to suggest that the majority should rule. And some figured they made it fair when they added an opt out rule.
Questions for student to consdier.
- What were the arguments used in each of these cases to remove religious practices from the public schools?
- What were the arguments for continuing those practices?
- 1Why were these cases about religious activities in public schools seen as a threat by many Americans?
Engle v Vitale
More on the Case
In Engle v Vitale, the school board argued that their prayer included the idea that “belief and trust in a creator” is an important part of our country. They argued that it’s an “essential and permanent factor of the American government system.” The Supreme Court did not agree and said that state sponsorship of prayer is not constitutional
In Engle v Vitale, the school board argued that their prayer included the idea that “belief and trust in a creator” is an important part of our country. They argued that it’s an “essential and permanent factor of the American government system.” The Supreme Court did not agree and said that state sponsorship of prayer is not constitutional
- Oyez, Engle V. Vitale
- Khan Academy, Engle v. Vitale
- Bill of Rights Institute, Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Abington v Schemp
In Abington V Schempp, the school board argued that reading Bible in school led to moral strength and even had a calming effect on the students. But the Supreme Court did not agree.
McCollum v. Board of Education
|
More abou the case
In Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948), "the Supreme Court overturned a “released time” arrangement whereby public schools provide religious training during regular school hours, holding that the practice violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment."
|
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EWING
|
More about this case
|
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n
Here's wht the court ruled in 1987: The Free Exercise Clause, U.S. Const. amend. I, affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion; it does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government's internal procedures."
- From Casetext: Summary of the case
- First Amendment Encyclopedia
Employment Division v. Smith
More on the case:
Emoplyment Division vs. Smith is "a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual."
Emoplyment Division vs. Smith is "a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual."
- How Best to Understand State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts(RFRAs): Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns” By Vikram David Amar and Alen E. Brownstein, April 24, 2015, from Verdict
- “The (Limited) Utility of State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts(RFRAs): Part Two in a Two-Part Series of Columns” By Vikram David Amar and Alen E. Brownstein, May 8, 2015, from Verdict
- First Freedoms, excellent and accessible summary
- Oyez, Employment Division
- The First Amendament Encylcopedia
- Pew Forum
Some questions for students to consdier about this case
- What was at stake in the Oregon v. Smith case?
- What was the public reaction to the ruling in Oregon v. Smith
- What was the government response to the ruling in Oregon v. Smith?
Cantwell v Connecticut
|
More about this case
A Jehovah’s Witnesses was convicted on a charge of breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street. |
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
|
More on this case
"A Supreme Court case concerning the mandatory schooling of three Amish students. The state of Wisconsin fined the students’ families for refusing to send them to school after the eighth grade; the Amish families argued that higher education conflicted with the free exercise of their religious beliefs." |
Sherbert v. Verner
"The Sabbath for Seventh-day Adventists begins on Friday evening and lasts through Saturday, and the religion prohibits work on the Sabbath. Seventh-day Adventist Adele Sherbert lost her job for refusing to work on her Sabbath, but the state of South Carolina refused her unemployment benefits because she would not accept available work from other employers who also wanted her to work on Saturday. The Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner invalidated the state's unemployment benefits rule as an infringement on First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion. In this photo, youth worship on Sabbath at a Seventh-day Adventist church in Dallas in 2014. (Image via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that government can restrict the free exercise rights of individuals only if the regulations survive strict scrutiny, placing a steep burden on state laws in such cases." |
|
Reynolds V United States
"This Supreme Court Case focuses on a case which tested the limits of religious liberty: Reynolds v. United States (1879). The Court ruled unanimously that a law banning polygamy was constitutional, and did not infringe upon individuals’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion."
|
|
Apache Stronghold v. United States
From Becket
"Oak Flat (known in Apache as Chi'chil Bildagoteel) is a sacred site in Arizona’s vibrant Tonto National Forest where Native Americans have gone to worship, pray, and conduct religious ceremonies since time immemorial. Recognizing its responsibility to Native peoples, the federal government has protected the sacred site for more than six decades. But in 2014, a rider was attached to a must-pass defense bill directing the government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company, which plans to construct a mine that will obliterate the sacred site in a nearly 2-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater. Now Becket is fighting to stop the destruction of the site, which would irreparably harm the religious expression and practices of the region’s first inhabitants."
"Oak Flat (known in Apache as Chi'chil Bildagoteel) is a sacred site in Arizona’s vibrant Tonto National Forest where Native Americans have gone to worship, pray, and conduct religious ceremonies since time immemorial. Recognizing its responsibility to Native peoples, the federal government has protected the sacred site for more than six decades. But in 2014, a rider was attached to a must-pass defense bill directing the government to transfer the land to Resolution Copper, a foreign-owned mining company, which plans to construct a mine that will obliterate the sacred site in a nearly 2-mile-wide, 1,100-foot-deep crater. Now Becket is fighting to stop the destruction of the site, which would irreparably harm the religious expression and practices of the region’s first inhabitants."
|
Washington Post: This land is sacred to the Apache, and they are fighting to save it LA Times: Will the Biden administration stop the cultural and environmental atrocity at Oak Flat? NPR: Oak Flat' Tells The Story Of An Apache Tribe Fighting To Save Its Land From Mining Sierra Club: The Fight for oak Flat |