Shots Across The Bow

Religion in Schools

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

This doesn't mean freedom from religion, no matter how much some would like to think so. Religious thought and expression was central to the lives of most of the signatories of the Constitution, and it is unimaginable that they sought to exclude religious expression from public life.

However, they did exclude it from government. The Constitution is one of the most carefully written contracts in history. Each word is there for a reason; by the same token, if a word isn't there, it is also for a reason. Although acting from the inspiration of religious beliefs, the Convention developed a document fully grounded in secular language. While the Declaration of Independence refers to a "Creator" as the basis for our rights, the Constitution does not, instead acting as a directory for the strictly limited ways that government could interfere with those rights.

However, the First Amendment continues to say:

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

a phrase lost fairly frequently in today's more secular society. It clearly indicates that public life was not expected to be free from religious expression or conduct. Far from trying to exclude religious expression from daily life, by it's placement in the First Amendment, the framers showed that they considered freedom of religious expression to be just as vital as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. The two clauses, anti-establishment and free exercise, have two very different goals and result in a tenuous balancing act for state and federal governments, as demonstrated by the controversy surrounding President Bush's faith-based initiatives.

Now, these two clauses are on a collision course. In a lawsuit filed in February, Greg and Sarajane Tracy are accusing the Union County Board of Education and Horace Maynard Middle School of sponsoring religious field trips to a local revival held during school hours. Additionally, the suit claims that India Tracy, their daughter, was subjected to harassment by students and faculty at Horace Maynard, and physical abuse from other students, and that the harassment was based on her religion.

The Tracy's are Pagans, and India was marked for harassment for not attending the revival, and refusing to play the Virgin Mary in the school play. A summary of the facts can be found here

According to an article in the News-Sentinel, the Union County BOE is denying the charges, and will contest the suit.

But Knoxville attorney John Duffy, who is representing the school board, wrote in the answer that "India was not subjected to harassment which deprived her of access to educational opportunities" and that school officials acted reasonably to protect her.

His strategy appears two fold. First, he's claiming that the harassment was not motivated by India's religion, but by the fact that she was perceived as different. Second, he's claiming that any accommodation that the school made for the revival was carried out in the spirit of the second clause, "free exercise of religion."

"Private religious organizations sponsor and conduct a religious event known as the Crusade," the answer reads. Parents are permitted to remove their children from school to attend the services, which last about two hours for three days.

"Such is a reasonable accommodation for parents and their children to exercise religious beliefs, which is not limited to a particular religious sect or denomination," the document reads.

The first strategy is flawed in a couple of areas. First, it was India's religion that made her look different in the first place, making it a proximate cause of the abuse. Second, the harassment claimed in the suit goes beyond taunting and assaults by other students. India was harassed by teachers and administrators at the school as well. That cannot be charged off as "Kids will be kids."

It is the second strategy which is much more intriguing, and could turn a little case in East Tennessee into one with national implications. Can a school system, or any other state or federal body, accommodate religious activities, in keeping with the free expression clause, without violating the anti-establishment clause? Second, even if it is permissible for a school to accommodate a religious activity, did Horace Maynard Middle School or the Union County school board go too far with their support of the revival?

I don't see where the school system is compelled to accommodate any religious activities, unless those activities are integral to the practice of that religion. Attending a revival is not integral to any religion. Additionally, there are revivals held during non-school hours, therefore not accommodating this particular revival would not constitute a restriction of free exercise.

Posted by Rich at May 11, 2003 4:17 PM | TrackBack