seminar: christians and their legal rights seminar: christians and their legal rights summer session...

Seminar:Seminar: Christians and their Legal RightsChristians and their Legal Rights

Summer Session 2004

Professor Alexander Lee, Esq.

Coastland UniversityCoastland University

“We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Justice Douglas in Zorach v. Clauson (1952)

Orange County Superior Court

California SupremeCourt

California Court ofAppeals

Federal DistrictCourt (94)

United States Supreme Court

Federal Court ofAppeals (13)

The United States Judicial SystemThe United States Judicial System


• State CourtsState Courts – Each State has a court system that exists independently from federal – Each State has a court system that exists independently from federal courts. They generally have trial courts at the bottom level and an appeals court. courts. They generally have trial courts at the bottom level and an appeals court. Over 95% of the nation’s legal cases are decided at the State court level. Generally, Over 95% of the nation’s legal cases are decided at the State court level. Generally, cases that originate at the state court level can end up in federal court in one of two cases that originate at the state court level can end up in federal court in one of two ways: (1) after all avenues of appeal have been heard at the state court level, or (2) if ways: (1) after all avenues of appeal have been heard at the state court level, or (2) if the case can be transferred or appealed to the federal courts because a “federal the case can be transferred or appealed to the federal courts because a “federal question” is involved. Most states organize their court system to mirror the federal question” is involved. Most states organize their court system to mirror the federal system of trial courts, a court of appeals, and a Supreme Court of the state.system of trial courts, a court of appeals, and a Supreme Court of the state.

• Federal CourtsFederal Courts – Federal Court jurisdiction is limited to cases where there is a – Federal Court jurisdiction is limited to cases where there is a question of federal law. Federal Courts have three levels:question of federal law. Federal Courts have three levels:

• United States District CourtsUnited States District Courts – Federal District Courts are created by Congress – Federal District Courts are created by Congress (Article I) and serve as the trial courts for the federal system. Federal Judges are (Article I) and serve as the trial courts for the federal system. Federal Judges are appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate.appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate.

• United States Court of AppealsUnited States Court of Appeals – The thirteen federal Courts of Appeal are – The thirteen federal Courts of Appeal are created by Congress (Article I) and each cover a specific territory of up to nine created by Congress (Article I) and each cover a specific territory of up to nine states (the 9states (the 9thth Circuit Court of Appeals covers the Western United States). Thus, a Circuit Court of Appeals covers the Western United States). Thus, a decision of a Court of Appeals is binding upon all courts in that territory (unless decision of a Court of Appeals is binding upon all courts in that territory (unless reversed by the Supreme Court). However, the decision is not binding (though reversed by the Supreme Court). However, the decision is not binding (though has precedential value) upon another circuit. These courts hear appeals from the has precedential value) upon another circuit. These courts hear appeals from the Federal District Court (and sometimes a State Court). Such cases generally are Federal District Court (and sometimes a State Court). Such cases generally are limited to errors of law or legal interpretation. Federal Appeals Judges are limited to errors of law or legal interpretation. Federal Appeals Judges are appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate.appointed by the President with the advice of the Senate.


Federal CourtsFederal Courts – (cont.): – (cont.):

• United States Supreme CourtUnited States Supreme Court – The US Supreme Court was created by Article III – The US Supreme Court was created by Article III (Section 1). The Court is made up of Nine Justices that are appointed by the President (Section 1). The Court is made up of Nine Justices that are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of all legal disputes and its decisions are binding upon all other courts. The most of all legal disputes and its decisions are binding upon all other courts. The most important power of the Supreme Court is the power of “Judicial Review.” Judicial important power of the Supreme Court is the power of “Judicial Review.” Judicial review essentially allows the court to (i) declare any laws invalid if they violated the review essentially allows the court to (i) declare any laws invalid if they violated the Constitution, (ii) determine the meaning of the Constitution, or (iii) determine where Constitution, (ii) determine the meaning of the Constitution, or (iii) determine where federal jurisdiction extends over state and local laws (preemption). federal jurisdiction extends over state and local laws (preemption).

• The Supreme Court can only make a decision if a case is before it. Cases generally The Supreme Court can only make a decision if a case is before it. Cases generally make their way to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from one of the thirteen circuit make their way to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from one of the thirteen circuit courts (sometimes the Court will review cases from State Supreme Courts that involve courts (sometimes the Court will review cases from State Supreme Courts that involve substantial federal questions). Although almost 5,000 cases per year are submitted to substantial federal questions). Although almost 5,000 cases per year are submitted to the court for review, the court generally declines to hear the case (thus leaving the the court for review, the court generally declines to hear the case (thus leaving the decision of the Appellate Court as law for that circuit) and typically decides fewer than decision of the Appellate Court as law for that circuit) and typically decides fewer than 250 cases. Usually, cases are limited to situations where there is a major question of 250 cases. Usually, cases are limited to situations where there is a major question of law that needs to be addressed.law that needs to be addressed.

• Because questions about religion invoke the First Amendment of the Constitution, Because questions about religion invoke the First Amendment of the Constitution, these cases most certainly end up in the federal court system rather than the State these cases most certainly end up in the federal court system rather than the State court system. In addition, because of the Constitutional interpretation necessary to court system. In addition, because of the Constitutional interpretation necessary to decide these cases and their fundamental importance, many of these cases find their decide these cases and their fundamental importance, many of these cases find their way to the Supreme Court. The majority of the law developed in the area of Christianity way to the Supreme Court. The majority of the law developed in the area of Christianity centers around Supreme Court decisions.centers around Supreme Court decisions.

JusticeJustice Appointed ByAppointed By Political PartyPolitical Party Political StancePolitical StanceWilliam RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist Richard NixonRichard Nixon Republican Republican Very ConservativeVery Conservative

Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan Republican Republican Very ConservativeVery Conservative

Clarence ThomasClarence Thomas George Bush (Sr.)George Bush (Sr.) Republican Republican Very ConservativeVery Conservative

Sandra Day O’ConnorSandra Day O’Connor Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan Republican Republican Moderate-ConservativeModerate-Conservative

Anthony KennedyAnthony Kennedy Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan Republican Republican Moderate-Moderate-ConservativeConservative

David SouterDavid Souter George Bush (Sr.)George Bush (Sr.) Republican Republican Moderate-LiberalModerate-Liberal

Stephen BreyerStephen Breyer Bill ClintonBill Clinton Democrat Democrat Moderate-LiberalModerate-Liberal

Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg Bill ClintonBill Clinton Democrat Democrat Somewhat LiberalSomewhat Liberal

John Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens Gerald FordGerald Ford Republican Republican Very Liberal Very Liberal

Current U.S. Supreme Court

The United States ConstitutionThe United States Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution is the central instrument of government and the The U.S. Constitution is the central instrument of government and the “Supreme Law of the “Supreme Law of the land."land." It is the oldest written Constitution in the world that is in force. It was written in 1787 in It is the oldest written Constitution in the world that is in force. It was written in 1787 in Philadelphia by the Continental Congress of the new American republic and was officially Philadelphia by the Continental Congress of the new American republic and was officially adopted in 1789. The objective of the writers was to outline the structure of a new, strong central adopted in 1789. The objective of the writers was to outline the structure of a new, strong central government after the years of weakness and chaos resulting from the preexisting "Articles of government after the years of weakness and chaos resulting from the preexisting "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" which loosely bound the colonies together since 1778. The Confederation and Perpetual Union" which loosely bound the colonies together since 1778. The Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the 3 branches of government (executive, Constitution outlines the structure and powers of the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) and the 3 levels of government (federal, state, local). The basic principles of legislative, judicial) and the 3 levels of government (federal, state, local). The basic principles of the Constitution are the same today as when it was written: the Constitution are the same today as when it was written:

• the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and the 3 branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) are separate and each is checked and balanced off by the power of the other two, balanced off by the power of the other two,

• all persons are equal before the law, as are all states and each state must be democratic and respect the law all persons are equal before the law, as are all states and each state must be democratic and respect the law of others, of others,

• The people can change the U S Constitution by the methods outlined within it. An Amendment to The people can change the U S Constitution by the methods outlined within it. An Amendment to the U S Constitution may be initiated by a 2/3 vote in each chamber of congress, or 2/3 of the the U S Constitution may be initiated by a 2/3 vote in each chamber of congress, or 2/3 of the states calling for a national convention. In either case a vote of 3/4 of the states is required to states calling for a national convention. In either case a vote of 3/4 of the states is required to actually make an amendment. The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over time actually make an amendment. The interpretation of the Constitution has changed over time without amendment by various pieces of legislation and judicial decisions. without amendment by various pieces of legislation and judicial decisions.

• The U S Constitution has had 27 amendments. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the The U S Constitution has had 27 amendments. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, were adopted in 1791 in order to meet demands for the signature of Massachusetts Constitution, were adopted in 1791 in order to meet demands for the signature of Massachusetts and other states to the Constitution:and other states to the Constitution:

The Bill of Rights consists of the First Ten Amendments to the U.S. ConstitutionThe Bill of Rights consists of the First Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution::

11stst Amendment - Amendment - Freedom of ReligionFreedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech/Press, Right of Peaceful Assembly, Right , Freedom of Speech/Press, Right of Peaceful Assembly, Right to Petition the Governmentto Petition the Government

22ndnd Amendment- Right of Citizens to Bear Firearms Amendment- Right of Citizens to Bear Firearms

33rdrd Amendment - No Quartering of Troops in Private Homes Without Consent Amendment - No Quartering of Troops in Private Homes Without Consent

44thth Amendment - Guards against Unreasonable Search and Seizure Amendment - Guards against Unreasonable Search and Seizure

55thth Amendment - Due Process Clause: Requires Indictment by a Grand Jury for Major Crimes before Amendment - Due Process Clause: Requires Indictment by a Grand Jury for Major Crimes before Trial, Prohibits Double Jeopardy, Right to Avoid Self Incrimination, Right to Privacy?Trial, Prohibits Double Jeopardy, Right to Avoid Self Incrimination, Right to Privacy?

66thth Amendment - Right to a Speedy Public Trial, Trial by an Unbiased Jury, Right to Legal Counsel, Amendment - Right to a Speedy Public Trial, Trial by an Unbiased Jury, Right to Legal Counsel, Right to Confront AccuserRight to Confront Accuser

77thth Amendment - Right to a Jury Trial Amendment - Right to a Jury Trial

88thth Amendment - Forbids Cruel or Unusual Punishment Amendment - Forbids Cruel or Unusual Punishment

99thth Amendment - People have rights other than those mentioned in the Constitution Amendment - People have rights other than those mentioned in the Constitution

1010thth Amendment - Powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people Amendment - Powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or the people

The Bill of RightsThe Bill of Rights

The First AmendmentThe First Amendment

““Congress shall make no law respecting an Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”of grievances.”

““Congress shall make no lawCongress shall make no law respecting an respecting an establishment of religion, orestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the prohibiting the free exercise thereoffree exercise thereof; ; or abridging the or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”of grievances.”

The Free Exercise ClauseThe Free Exercise Clause

The Establishment ClauseThe Establishment Clause

““Congress shall make no law respecting an Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religionestablishment of religion, , or prohibiting the or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”of grievances.”

The Establishment ClauseThe Establishment Clause

“Congress”“Respecting an

Establishment ofReligion”

“Shall Make no Law”

Government andGovernment Agencies

Respecting anEstablishment of

Religion

Shall Make no Law,Rule or Regulation

Government FundedAgencies?

That endorses orsupports religion?

Shall Engage in noActivities?

Lemon v. KurtzmanLemon v. Kurtzman (403 U.S. 602 (403 U.S. 602 (1971)(1971)

(i) Does the statute (or public policy) (i) Does the statute (or public policy) have a secular legislative purpose?have a secular legislative purpose?

(ii) Does the principal effect of the (ii) Does the principal effect of the statute (or policy) neither advance statute (or policy) neither advance nor inhibit religion?nor inhibit religion?

(iii) Does the statute (or policy) (iii) Does the statute (or policy) foster "excessive (government) foster "excessive (government) entanglement with religion?"entanglement with religion?"

The Establishment ClauseThe Establishment Clause(The Lemon Test)(The Lemon Test)

Christianity in Our GovernmentChristianity in Our Government

““Every person is to be in subjection to the governing Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”receive condemnation upon themselves.” Romans Romans 13:1-213:1-2

““But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.” children alive.” Exodus 1:17Exodus 1:17..

““Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed forbidding prayer to God, he went into his house; and forbidding prayer to God, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.”did aforetime.” Daniel 6:10Daniel 6:10..


Religious Displays:Religious Displays:

Lynch v. DonnellyLynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (the Court holds that a privately 465 U.S. 668 (1984) (the Court holds that a privately funded nativity scene in the courthouse violates the Establishment funded nativity scene in the courthouse violates the Establishment Clause but a Menorah near the city Christmas tree did not).Clause but a Menorah near the city Christmas tree did not).

County of Allegheny v. ACLUCounty of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (the Court holds that a , 492 U.S. 573 (1989) (the Court holds that a government sponsored nativity scene in the town square in conjunction government sponsored nativity scene in the town square in conjunction with Christmas decorations did not violate the Establishment Clause).with Christmas decorations did not violate the Establishment Clause).

““The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the “callous indifference,” that was never intended by the require the “callous indifference,” that was never intended by the Establishment Clause”Establishment Clause”

Capitol Square v. PinetteCapitol Square v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) (the Court holds that the , 515 U.S. 753 (1995) (the Court holds that the Klu Klux Klan’s display of a cross in the public park during the holiday Klu Klux Klan’s display of a cross in the public park during the holiday season does not violate the Establishment Clause and that denial of such season does not violate the Establishment Clause and that denial of such a request would violate the Constitutional right to freedom of a request would violate the Constitutional right to freedom of speech/expression).speech/expression).


Religious Displays (cont.):Religious Displays (cont.):

Key factors in the Court's decision:Key factors in the Court's decision:

1)1) Did the Government itself erect or sponsor the religious Did the Government itself erect or sponsor the religious display?display?

2)2) Was the religious display erected on government property? Was the religious display erected on government property? Is the government property generally an open public forum?Is the government property generally an open public forum?

3)3) Is the display purely religious or is it accompanied by other Is the display purely religious or is it accompanied by other secular symbols of the holiday?secular symbols of the holiday?

4)4) If a private group erects the display, did they request If a private group erects the display, did they request permission through the same application process and on the permission through the same application process and on the same terms required of other private groups? same terms required of other private groups?

5)5) Is there any sign disclaiming any government sponsorship or Is there any sign disclaiming any government sponsorship or endorsement?endorsement?

Christianity in Our GovernmentChristianity in Our GovernmentLegislative Prayer:Legislative Prayer:

Marsh v. ChambersMarsh v. Chambers 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (the Court upholds the 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (the Court upholds the Nebraska legislature’s practice of opening each legislative session Nebraska legislature’s practice of opening each legislative session with prayer).with prayer).

““The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has The practice of opening sessions of Congress with prayer has continued without interruption for almost 200 years ever since the continued without interruption for almost 200 years ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice First Congress drafted the First Amendment, and a similar practice has been followed for more than a century in Nebraska and many has been followed for more than a century in Nebraska and many other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify other states. While historical patterns, standing alone, cannot justify contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical contemporary violations of constitutional guarantees, historical evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the evidence in the context of this case sheds light not only on what the drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause drafters of the First Amendment intended the Establishment Clause to mean but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the to mean but also on how they thought that Clause applied to the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the chaplaincy practice authorized by the First Congress. In applying the First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, First Amendment to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more it would be incongruous to interpret the Clause as imposing more stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen stringent First Amendment limits on the states than the draftsmen imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there imposed on the Federal Government. In light of the history, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is these circumstances, a violation of the Establishment Clause; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”people of this country.”


The Ten Commandments:The Ten Commandments:

Glassroth v. Moore,Glassroth v. Moore, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (the Eleventh 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (the Eleventh Circuit holds that Justice Moore’s placement of a Ten Circuit holds that Justice Moore’s placement of a Ten Commandments monument in the courthouse rotunda Commandments monument in the courthouse rotunda violates the Establishment Clause).violates the Establishment Clause).

““the Supreme Court has instructed us that “the Ten the Supreme Court has instructed us that “the Ten Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Commandments are undeniably a sacred text in the Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative Jewish and Christian faiths, and no legislative recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us recitation of a supposed secular purpose can blind us to that fact.” Citing to that fact.” Citing Stone v. GrahamStone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 , 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (holding that the posting of the Ten (1980) (holding that the posting of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky schoolrooms was Commandments in Kentucky schoolrooms was unconstitutional, even if donated by a private group).unconstitutional, even if donated by a private group).

““Now these are the Now these are the commandmentscommandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the , the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you . . . And thou shalt write them upon LORD your God commanded to teach you . . . And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.” Deuteronomy 6:1-9Deuteronomy 6:1-9

““You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding soul and with all your might. These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. you today, shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to You shall teach them diligently to your sonsyour sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” Deuteronomy 6:5-7Deuteronomy 6:5-7..

““Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and the discipline and instructioninstruction of the Lord.” of the Lord.” Ephesians 6:4Ephesians 6:4..

““Listen, O my people, to my instruction; incline your ears to the words Listen, O my people, to my instruction; incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have sayings of old, Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us.told us. We will not conceal them from their children, but tell to the We will not conceal them from their children, but tell to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His And His strength and His wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in wondrous works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathersJacob And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers that they should teach them to their children, That the generation to that they should teach them to their children, That the generation to come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise come might know, even the children yet to be born, That they may arise and tell them to their children, That they should put their confidence in and tell them to their children, That they should put their confidence in God And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments.” God And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments.” Psalm 78:1-7Psalm 78:1-7

Christianity in Our SchoolsChristianity in Our Schools

Christianity in Our SchoolsChristianity in Our Schools

Prayer in Schools:Prayer in Schools:• School Sponsored PrayerSchool Sponsored Prayer

• ClassroomClassroom• Commencement/GraduationCommencement/Graduation

• Student Sponsored PrayerStudent Sponsored Prayer• ClassroomClassroom• Commencement/GraduationCommencement/Graduation• Extra-curricular ActivitiesExtra-curricular Activities

• Christian Clubs/Equal AccessChristian Clubs/Equal Access• Curriculum Matters:Curriculum Matters:• Creation ScienceCreation Science• Opting out of Objectionable ContentOpting out of Objectionable Content

Prayer in SchoolsPrayer in SchoolsPrayer in school was a very hot political topic in the eighties. However, Prayer in school was a very hot political topic in the eighties. However, much of the push for prayer on the political front has waned because of much of the push for prayer on the political front has waned because of the clear lines that were drawn by the Supreme Court. The the clear lines that were drawn by the Supreme Court. The battleground for school prayer lies in the gray areas where the battleground for school prayer lies in the gray areas where the principles of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause collide.principles of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause collide.

“There is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Fee Exercise Clauses protect.” Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).

• School Led PrayerSchool Led Prayer – – This category involves situations where the school This category involves situations where the school or its officials are actively participating in, sponsoring or endorsing or its officials are actively participating in, sponsoring or endorsing prayer. These activities will invite Establishment Clause challenges and prayer. These activities will invite Establishment Clause challenges and invoke the invoke the LemonLemon test. Within this category would fall: school test. Within this category would fall: school led/loudspeaker prayers, teacher led prayers, setting aside “prayer led/loudspeaker prayers, teacher led prayers, setting aside “prayer time,” prayers by school selected speakers, etc. The Supreme Court has time,” prayers by school selected speakers, etc. The Supreme Court has routinely routinely ruled againstruled against school prayer in this category. school prayer in this category.

• Student Led PrayerStudent Led Prayer – – This category involves the rights of individual This category involves the rights of individual students or groups of students to pray in school, on school grounds, or students or groups of students to pray in school, on school grounds, or at school functions. These cases invoke the Freedom of Religion Clause at school functions. These cases invoke the Freedom of Religion Clause and the Supreme Court has routinely voted and the Supreme Court has routinely voted in favor ofin favor of school prayer in school prayer in these situations.these situations.

Religious Speech is viewed as state sponsored if the government (i.e., the Religious Speech is viewed as state sponsored if the government (i.e., the public school or its officials):public school or its officials):

• Select a religious message. Select a religious message. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (Court , 370 U.S. 421 (1962) (Court struck down teachers leading their class in a non-denominational prayer at struck down teachers leading their class in a non-denominational prayer at the start of each day).the start of each day).

• Deliver a religious message. Deliver a religious message. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 , 374 U.S. 203 (1962) (Court struck down the reading of Bible devotionals each U.S. 203 (1962) (Court struck down the reading of Bible devotionals each day in school).day in school).

• Give encouragement or highlight a religious message as a favored practice. Give encouragement or highlight a religious message as a favored practice. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (Court struck down the “moment of , 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (Court struck down the “moment of silence” statute).silence” statute).

• Require, arrange or select a religious message to be given. Require, arrange or select a religious message to be given. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Court struck down the selection of a Jewish , 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (Court struck down the selection of a Jewish rabbi to give an invocation at a graduation ceremony).rabbi to give an invocation at a graduation ceremony).

• Give a private speaker preferential access to a school forum, audience or Give a private speaker preferential access to a school forum, audience or facility for the purpose of delivering a religious message. facility for the purpose of delivering a religious message. Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (Court struck , 530 U.S. 290 (2000) (Court struck down a student led prayer over the loudspeaker before each home football down a student led prayer over the loudspeaker before each home football game). game).

Prayer in SchoolsPrayer in Schools(School Sponsored Prayer)(School Sponsored Prayer)

Prayer in SchoolsPrayer in Schools(School Sponsored Prayer)(School Sponsored Prayer)

Is it always the atheist that uses the system to tear Is it always the atheist that uses the system to tear down school prayer?down school prayer?

CaseCase IssueIssue Plaintiff’s Religious Plaintiff’s Religious AffiliationAffiliation

Engel v. Vitale School PrayerSchool Prayer Religious (denomination Religious (denomination unknown)unknown)

Abrington v. SchemppAbrington v. Schempp Bible DevotionalsBible Devotionals Christian (Unitarian)Christian (Unitarian)

Wallace v. JaffreeWallace v. Jaffree Moment of SilenceMoment of Silence Agnostic/Baha’iAgnostic/Baha’i

Lee v. WeismanLee v. Weisman Religious SpeakersReligious Speakers JewishJewish

Santa Fe. v. DoeSanta Fe. v. Doe Prayer at Football GamesPrayer at Football Games Mormon/CatholicMormon/Catholic

Newdow v. United StatesNewdow v. United States Pledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance AtheistAtheist

Where the individual student or groups of students engage in prayer Where the individual student or groups of students engage in prayer activities, their rights to do so are protected by the Free Speech Clause and activities, their rights to do so are protected by the Free Speech Clause and Freedom of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, students have a Freedom of Religion Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, students have a right to pray and participate in prayer activities. The Establishment Clause right to pray and participate in prayer activities. The Establishment Clause becomes a relevant, and thus a countering force against the students rights becomes a relevant, and thus a countering force against the students rights when the school is viewed as sponsoring or endorsing such activity:when the school is viewed as sponsoring or endorsing such activity:

““Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any Nothing in the Constitution as interpreted by this Court prohibits any public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, public school student from voluntarily praying at any time before, during, or after the school day.”or after the school day.” Santa Fe Independent School District v. DoeSanta Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 , 530 U.S. 313 (2000).U.S. 313 (2000).

• Students may select their own graduation speaker that has a religious message or Students may select their own graduation speaker that has a religious message or opens with a religious prayer. opens with a religious prayer. Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School District, 977 , 977 F. 2d 963 (1992) – notice the contrast to the decision inF. 2d 963 (1992) – notice the contrast to the decision in Lee v. Weisman.

• Students may form religious groups or clubs and are entitled to the same rights as Students may form religious groups or clubs and are entitled to the same rights as any other clubs on campus. any other clubs on campus. Board of Education v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (upholding the Constitutionality of the Equal Access Act, which provides equal access for religious clubs in government settings).

• In the same sense, religious groups are entitled to equal access to government property (i.e., schools) if other groups are provided the same opportunity. The mere fact that the group is religious is not a basis for discriminating against the religious group. Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 385 (1993).

Prayer in SchoolsPrayer in Schools(Student Initiated Prayer)(Student Initiated Prayer)

Creation ScienceCreation Science

• Scopes Trial (Scopes Trial (Scopes v. StateScopes v. State, , 289 S.W. 363 (Tenn. 289 S.W. 363 (Tenn. 1927))1927))- Tennessee made it a crime to teach evolution (“monkey law”).- Tennessee made it a crime to teach evolution (“monkey law”).

- Scopes “lost” and was fined $100- Scopes “lost” and was fined $100

- History records that Scopes’ atheist defense attorney Clarence Darrow - History records that Scopes’ atheist defense attorney Clarence Darrow humiliated William Jennings Bryan, the creationist lawyer, but this is a humiliated William Jennings Bryan, the creationist lawyer, but this is a myth. myth.

- No major legal relevance to current law.- No major legal relevance to current law.

- Today we have “reverse Scopes” where it is typically illegal to teach - Today we have “reverse Scopes” where it is typically illegal to teach anything BUT evolution.anything BUT evolution.

• Epperson v. ArkansasEpperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968), 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968)- Arkansas “monkey law” made it unlawful “to teach the theory or doctrine - Arkansas “monkey law” made it unlawful “to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.”that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals.”

- Law struck down because “Neither [a State nor the Federal Government] - Law struck down because “Neither [a State nor the Federal Government] can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another” (religion over another” (EppersonEpperson at 106) at 106)

- Supreme Court said it was tailored to a particular set of religious beliefs - Supreme Court said it was tailored to a particular set of religious beliefs --- it “preferred” the Genesis creation account -- and was unconstitutional. --- it “preferred” the Genesis creation account -- and was unconstitutional.

Creation ScienceCreation Science• McLean v. Board of EducationMcLean v. Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1259 , 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1259

(1982)(1982)- Arkansas regroups and passes an “Equal Time” law:- Arkansas regroups and passes an “Equal Time” law:

““Public schools … shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and Public schools … shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science” (McLean at 1256)to evolution-science” (McLean at 1256)

- District Court Judge Overton found it failed the “- District Court Judge Overton found it failed the “LemonLemon test:” test:”

1) Religious Purpose (1st prong)1) Religious Purpose (1st prong)

2) Advances religion (2nd prong): Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse 2) Advances religion (2nd prong): Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse testified creation - science is testified creation - science is notnot science. Ruse has been science. Ruse has been sharply sharply criticized criticized by other philosophers of science.by other philosophers of science.

• Edwards v. AguillardEdwards v. Aguillard,, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)482 U.S. 578 (1987)- Louisiana passes a similar “Equal Time” law.- Louisiana passes a similar “Equal Time” law.

- The law failed the first “Religious Purpose” prong of - The law failed the first “Religious Purpose” prong of LemonLemon..

- Found creationism was religion because it led to a “supernatural creator.” - Found creationism was religion because it led to a “supernatural creator.”

BUT...BUT...

- “[T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to - “[T]eaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.” Could we thus teach intelligent design?the effectiveness of science instruction.” Could we thus teach intelligent design?

Christianity in the public essentially focuses upon Christianity in the public essentially focuses upon

the right for Evangelical Christians to share their the right for Evangelical Christians to share their

faith (as commanded by the Bible) with others in faith (as commanded by the Bible) with others in

public forums.public forums.

““and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all

Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth”Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth”

Acts 1:8.Acts 1:8.

““GoGo ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name

of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Matthew Matthew

28:19.28:19.

Christianity in the PublicChristianity in the Public

Evangelism in Public Places:Evangelism in Public Places:

• Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus,Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569 482 U.S. 569 (1987) – In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down (1987) – In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a ban on free speech activity that prevented as unconstitutional a ban on free speech activity that prevented the distribution of religious materials inside the terminal of the the distribution of religious materials inside the terminal of the Los Angeles airport. The court said the ban could not be justified Los Angeles airport. The court said the ban could not be justified “because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such “because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.” The case is often cited as legal an absolute prohibition of speech.” The case is often cited as legal precedent in other First Amendment and public evangelism cases.precedent in other First Amendment and public evangelism cases.

• International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 505 U.S. 672/830 (1992) -- The Supreme Court turned back another 672/830 (1992) -- The Supreme Court turned back another attempt to ban the distribution of literature at airport terminals. attempt to ban the distribution of literature at airport terminals. The court held that a ban on the distribution of literature in The court held that a ban on the distribution of literature in airport terminals is invalid. airport terminals is invalid.

• Capitol Square v. PinetteCapitol Square v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) -- the Court held , 515 U.S. 753 (1995) -- the Court held that the Klu Klux Klan’s display of a cross in the public park that the Klu Klux Klan’s display of a cross in the public park during the holiday season does not violate the Establishment during the holiday season does not violate the Establishment Clause and that denial of such a request would violate the Clause and that denial of such a request would violate the Constitutional right to freedom of speech/expression since it was Constitutional right to freedom of speech/expression since it was a public forum and other groups had similar access to the park for a public forum and other groups had similar access to the park for their approved displays.their approved displays.



Door-to-Door Evangelism:Door-to-Door Evangelism:

• Cantwell v. Connecticut, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) – the court in a 310 U.S. 296 (1940) – the court in a unanimous decision held that while general regulations on unanimous decision held that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials grounds were not. Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views." The Jehovah’s suppression of "free communication of views." The Jehovah’s Witness’ message, while offensive to many, did not entail any Witness’ message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speechthreat of "bodily harm" and was protected religious speech

• Watchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of StrattonWatchtower Bible and Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, , 536 536 U.S. 424 (2002) – the Court struck down an ordinance that U.S. 424 (2002) – the Court struck down an ordinance that prevented all religious and political canvassers to from prevented all religious and political canvassers to from entering any private property without first obtaining a permit entering any private property without first obtaining a permit from the city and disallowed any entrance if the homeowner from the city and disallowed any entrance if the homeowner had a no solicitation sign. “The mere fact that the ordinance had a no solicitation sign. “The mere fact that the ordinance covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is covers so much speech raises constitutional concerns. It is offensive - not only to the values protected by the First offensive - not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society - that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so."and then obtain a permit to do so."

Christianity in the PublicChristianity in the PublicDistribution of Religious Literature:Distribution of Religious Literature:

• United States v. Kokinda, United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720497 U.S. 720 (1990) (1990) ----The The Supreme Court cleared the way for the protection of Supreme Court cleared the way for the protection of additional free speech activity in public areas when it additional free speech activity in public areas when it strengthened the constitutionality of distributing strengthened the constitutionality of distributing literature. While the court upheld a ban on the literature. While the court upheld a ban on the solicitation of funds as constitutional, the court also solicitation of funds as constitutional, the court also determined that there was a critical distinction between determined that there was a critical distinction between the solicitation of funds and the distribution of literature the solicitation of funds and the distribution of literature in public venues. Thus, distribution of free literature is in public venues. Thus, distribution of free literature is constitutionally protected.constitutionally protected.

• International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672 (1992) -- The Supreme Court held that an 505 U.S. 672 (1992) -- The Supreme Court held that an airport terminal is not a public forum and a regulation airport terminal is not a public forum and a regulation banning solicitation activity need only satisfy a banning solicitation activity need only satisfy a reasonableness standard. Solicitors may slow the path of reasonableness standard. Solicitors may slow the path of possible contributors, cause duress or commit fraud. possible contributors, cause duress or commit fraud. Therefore, the regulation was deemed permissible. Therefore, the regulation was deemed permissible. However, in the companion case, the ban on distribution However, in the companion case, the ban on distribution of free literature was struck down as invalid (505 U.S. of free literature was struck down as invalid (505 U.S. 830).830).

Evangelism in the Workplace:Evangelism in the Workplace:

1.1. Title VII – protects the religious freedom of employees. To Title VII – protects the religious freedom of employees. To be protected by Title VII, an employee must show that:be protected by Title VII, an employee must show that:

1.1. He/she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with He/she holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;an employment requirement;

2.2. He/she has informed the employer about the conflict; andHe/she has informed the employer about the conflict; and3.3. He/she was discharged, disciplined, subjected to He/she was discharged, disciplined, subjected to

discrimination for failing to comply with the conflicting discrimination for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.employment requirement.

2.2. Title VII applies to government and private employers. Title VII applies to government and private employers. However, government employees have even greater However, government employees have even greater constitutional protections that employees of private constitutional protections that employees of private companies.companies.

3.3. Title VII also applies to employers. Employers may share Title VII also applies to employers. Employers may share their faith with employees, but cannot condition their faith with employees, but cannot condition employment or advancement (or even give such an employment or advancement (or even give such an impression) upon listening or adhering to the employer’s impression) upon listening or adhering to the employer’s religious beliefs.religious beliefs.


Under the law, employees may:Under the law, employees may:

1.1. Share the Gospel with co-workers as long as there is no imposition Share the Gospel with co-workers as long as there is no imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine.on co-workers or disruption of the work routine.

2.2. Keep your Bible or other religious items at your work station as Keep your Bible or other religious items at your work station as long as the items do not disrupt work or cause a blight to your long as the items do not disrupt work or cause a blight to your work area.work area.

3.3. Refuse to work on specific religious holidays (Sabbaths, Passover, Refuse to work on specific religious holidays (Sabbaths, Passover, etc.) if it is a part of their faith and they have communicated their etc.) if it is a part of their faith and they have communicated their belief to their employer. belief to their employer. Lake v. B.F. Goodrich CoLake v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 837 F.2d 449 ., 837 F.2d 449 (11(11thth Cir. 1988). Cir. 1988).

4.4. Refuse to work on specific projects (i.e., tax exempt status for Refuse to work on specific projects (i.e., tax exempt status for abortion clinic) that violate a persons religious convictions. abortion clinic) that violate a persons religious convictions. However, the person cannot object to projects that are the However, the person cannot object to projects that are the primary purpose of the job and they were aware of the tasks when primary purpose of the job and they were aware of the tasks when applying. applying. Haring v. BlumenthalHaring v. Blumenthal, 471 F. Supp. 1172 (D.D.C.1979)., 471 F. Supp. 1172 (D.D.C.1979).

5.5. Refuse to pay dues to Unions that support causes that violate a Refuse to pay dues to Unions that support causes that violate a religious belief. However, the employee must pay the equivalent religious belief. However, the employee must pay the equivalent amount to another charity or function that does not violate such amount to another charity or function that does not violate such beliefs. beliefs. McDaniel v. Essex International, IncMcDaniel v. Essex International, Inc., 571 F.2d 338 (6., 571 F.2d 338 (6thth Cir. 1978).Cir. 1978).


Christianity and PrivacyChristianity and Privacy

The Fourteenth AmendmentThe Fourteenth Amendment::

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor nor shall any stateshall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or propertydeprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due , without due process of law; process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsprotection of the laws..

"In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of "In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed." The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right 'liberty' must be broad indeed." The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights.” freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights.” Justice StewartJustice Stewart concurring in concurring in Roe v. Roe v. WadeWade, (citing , (citing Board of Regents Board of Regents v.v. Roth Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 572) , 408 U. S. 564, 572)

As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment restraints . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment." asserted to justify their abridgment." Justice StewartJustice Stewart concurring in concurring in Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade, , (citing (citing Poe v. UllmanPoe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961))., 367 U.S. 497 (1961)).

So what type of liberty/rights should United So what type of liberty/rights should United States citizens be entitled to . . ?States citizens be entitled to . . ?

• Right to bear children -- Right to bear children -- Skinner v. OklahomaSkinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)., 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

• Right to Marry an individual of any race or color --Right to Marry an individual of any race or color -- Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , 388 U.S. 1 (1967).(1967).

• Right to forego public education and send our kids to a private school -- Right to forego public education and send our kids to a private school -- Pierce v. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

• Right to home-school our children -- Right to home-school our children -- Wisconsin v. YoderWisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). , 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

• Right for a married couple to use contraception -- Right for a married couple to use contraception -- Griswold v. ConnecticutGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 , 381 U.S. 470 (1965)U.S. 470 (1965)..

• Right to have our children learn a foreign language -- Right to have our children learn a foreign language -- Meyer v. NebraskaMeyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. , 262 U.S. 390 (1923).390 (1923).

• Right to demand that your financial records are not disclosed by your financial Right to demand that your financial records are not disclosed by your financial institution? –institution? – Section 12 U.S.C. 3401-3342 in response to Section 12 U.S.C. 3401-3342 in response to Miller v. United StatesMiller v. United States, , 425 U.S. 435 (1976).425 U.S. 435 (1976).



• Right to bear children . . .what if the parents suffer from a genetic Right to bear children . . .what if the parents suffer from a genetic defect . . . what if one parent has criminal tendencies . . ?defect . . . what if one parent has criminal tendencies . . ?

• Right to Marry an individual of any race or color . . .what does the Right to Marry an individual of any race or color . . .what does the Bible have to say about interracial marriages (Bible have to say about interracial marriages (Ezra 10:1-17Ezra 10:1-17) ?) ?

• Right to home-school our children . . . what if the parents are not Right to home-school our children . . . what if the parents are not teaching the child even the basic elementary requirements? . . . teaching the child even the basic elementary requirements? . . . what if the parents are teaching a curriculum based on “Islamic what if the parents are teaching a curriculum based on “Islamic Hate” or “Devil Worship?” Hate” or “Devil Worship?”

• Right for a married couple to use contraception . . . what about an Right for a married couple to use contraception . . . what about an unmarried couple? Consider the Equal Protection Clause.unmarried couple? Consider the Equal Protection Clause.

• Right to have our children learn a foreign language . . .what about Right to have our children learn a foreign language . . .what about the movements toward English as a national language? . . . what the movements toward English as a national language? . . . what about the “English Only” movement in the United States.about the “English Only” movement in the United States.

• Right to demand that your financial records are not disclosed by Right to demand that your financial records are not disclosed by your financial institution – Section 12 U.S.C. 3401-3342 in your financial institution – Section 12 U.S.C. 3401-3342 in response to response to Miller v. United StatesMiller v. United States, 425 U.S. 435 (1976)., 425 U.S. 435 (1976).

The Road to Roe v. Wade

Eisenstadt v. Baird“Family Relationships”

Skinner v. Oklahoma“Child Bearing”

Roe v. Wade“Abortion”

Griswold v. Connecticut“Contraception”

Pierce v. Society of Sisters“Private Education”

Meyer v. Nebraska“Foreign Language”

Roe v. WadeRoe v. WadeRoe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). 410 U.S. 113 (1973). A woman challenged a A woman challenged a Texas statute that criminalized abortion. The Court struck Texas statute that criminalized abortion. The Court struck down the law stating that it violated the Fourteenth down the law stating that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to personal privacy. A woman has a Amendment’s right to personal privacy. A woman has a “fundamental” right to an abortion which can only be “fundamental” right to an abortion which can only be regulated by narrowly drawn statute that protect legitimate regulated by narrowly drawn statute that protect legitimate compelling state interests. The Court did find that the compelling state interests. The Court did find that the protection of the health of the mother and the “potentiality of protection of the health of the mother and the “potentiality of life” were both compelling state interests. However, the life” were both compelling state interests. However, the “potentiality of life” only became a compelling interest after “potentiality of life” only became a compelling interest after the first trimester of pregnancy. Thus:the first trimester of pregnancy. Thus:• For the For the first trimesterfirst trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation , the abortion decision and its effectuation

must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.attending physician.

• For the For the second trimestersecond trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in , the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

• For the For the third trimesterthird trimester, in promoting the potentiality of human , in promoting the potentiality of human life, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe life, the State may, if it chooses, regulate and even proscribe abortion, except where necessary, in appropriate medical abortion, except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief should follow, then thou shalt give life for life. Exodus 21:22-23.

Casey v. Planned Parenthood

Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). 505 U.S. 833 (1992). This case This case stemmed from laws that required abortion providers to follow stemmed from laws that required abortion providers to follow certain rules as parental consent and notification of the babies certain rules as parental consent and notification of the babies age. The court decision provides the rules which abortion age. The court decision provides the rules which abortion providers must work through in order to comply with the law. The providers must work through in order to comply with the law. The rules at issue were:rules at issue were:

• Informed consent and 24 hour waiting periodInformed consent and 24 hour waiting period• Informed consent of parent for minor seeking abortionInformed consent of parent for minor seeking abortion• Married woman must notify spouseMarried woman must notify spouse• Reporting requirements for abortion clinicsReporting requirements for abortion clinics• What constitutes a “medical emergency” which would excuse compliance What constitutes a “medical emergency” which would excuse compliance

with above requirementswith above requirements

The Court had the opportunity to overturn The Court had the opportunity to overturn Roe v. WadeRoe v. Wade yet declined yet declined to do so. However, the Court did provide the State more power to to do so. However, the Court did provide the State more power to regulate abortions.regulate abortions.

In deciding the case, the Court shifted its legal basis from a right In deciding the case, the Court shifted its legal basis from a right to privacy to a right to liberty to justify the right to an abortion. In to privacy to a right to liberty to justify the right to an abortion. In addition, the Court de-emphasized the trimester system set forth in addition, the Court de-emphasized the trimester system set forth in Roe and moved to a test of whether the fetus is prior to or Roe and moved to a test of whether the fetus is prior to or subsequent to viability.subsequent to viability.

JusticeJustice Appointed ByAppointed By Political PartyPolitical Party VoteVoteHarry BlackmunHarry Blackmun Richard NixonRichard Nixon RepublicanRepublican Yes Yes

John Paul StevensJohn Paul Stevens Gerald FordGerald Ford RepublicanRepublican Yes Yes

Sandra Day O’ConnorSandra Day O’Connor Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan RepublicanRepublican Yes Yes

Anthony KennedyAnthony Kennedy Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan RepublicanRepublican Yes Yes

David SouterDavid Souter George Bush (Sr.)George Bush (Sr.) RepublicanRepublican Yes Yes

William RehnquistWilliam Rehnquist Richard NixonRichard Nixon RepublicanRepublican No No

Antonin ScaliaAntonin Scalia Ronald ReaganRonald Reagan RepublicanRepublican No No

Clarence ThomasClarence Thomas George Bush (Sr.)George Bush (Sr.) RepublicanRepublican No No

Byron WhiteByron White John F. KennedyJohn F. Kennedy DemocratDemocrat NoNo

Casey v. Planned Parenthood

The Road From Roe

Casey v. Planned Parenthood“Abortion”


Laci Peterson Law?“Abortion?”

Steinberg v. Carhart“Partial Birth Abortion”

New Bush Law (2004)?“Partial Birth Abortion”

Bowers v. Hardwick

“Homosexuality”Gay Marriage?

Lawrence v. Texas

“Homosexuality”

Loving v. Virginia

“Interracial Marriage”

The Road to Gay Marriage?

Eisenstadt v. Baird“Relationships”

Griswold v. Connecticut“Contraception”


seminar: christians and their legal rights seminar: christians and their legal rights summer session...

Documents