Video
Written Component
The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses
Created by James Madison as part of the First Amendment, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses are now crucial parts of the American right to freedom. However, they weren’t always considered this way: America, since its founding, has been predicated on the concept of religious freedom. Indeed, many of the original colonies had been composed of immigrants who had fled from Europe to escape religious persecution, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania.
The Establishment and Free Practice Clauses were created to ban the implementation of an official national religion (it’s important to note that under the Establishment Clause, states were still allowed to have official religions, and some continued to do so until the 1830s (1)), to prevent congress from unfairly favoring one religion over another, and to guarantee citizens the ability to practice their respective religions.
The founders included these clauses to prevent the tyranny which would inevitably form out of the union of church and state, as well as to guarantee what was considered the “inalienable right” of citizens to free religious practice. Interpretations of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses have often been specific, especially within the rulings of the Supreme Court: the juxtaposition of cases such as Kennedy v Bremerton School District and Santa Fe School District v Doe makes these differences clear.
Interestingly enough, both cases involved similar pretenses; Kennedy sued the Bremerton School District for violating his Free Practice Clause rights after the District ordered him to stop praying before football games, whilst the Santa Fe School District was sued for organizing student led prayers over loudspeakers before football games and thus violating the Establishment Clause.
In the case of Kennedy, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs, writing that since Kennedy’s prayers were non-mandatory and discreet, they did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the court noted that the District’s order was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Nearly 20 years earlier, the court ruled against the Santa Fe School District, saying that prayers conducted over the loudspeaker were in violation of the Establishment Clause since they were organized and affiliated with the public school and, therefore, the government.
The distinction between government affiliated prayer and private prayer lends an interesting weight to these clauses, as the dilemma of separation between church and state has fascinated society for many years. Paralleling the Establishment Clause was the dechristianization of society during the French Revolution, wherein symbols of religion were removed throughout France. Interestingly enough, these sentiments continue today into modern French society— oftentimes, steps taken to eradicate the symbols of religion in public society have been targeted and Islamophobic (2).
This targeting raises the question of where the line should be drawn to separate government-affiliated and private religious symbolism: in the case of Doe, there were arguments that since the prayer was student-led, it did not violate the First Amendment. However, general consensus does seem to indicate that prayer conducted over a loudspeaker is considered public and, therefore, was in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Footnotes:
(1) Marc A. Clauson, “Religious freedom since the First Amendment and early state constitutions,” Constituting America, accessed June 1, 2023, https://constitutingamerica.org/religious-freedom-since-first-amendment-early-state-constitutions-guest-essayist-marc- clauson/#:~:text=Massachusetts%20was%20the%20last%20state,well%20as%20the%20national%20government.
(2) Rachel Donadio, “Why Is France so Afraid of God?,” The Atlantic, November 22, 2021, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/12/france-god-religion-secularism/620528/.
Tags: and, clauses, establishment, establishment-clause, exercise, first-amendment, free, free-exercise-clause, ranjan, shreya, shreya-ranjan, shreya-ranjan-the-establishment-and-free-exercise-clauses, the
7 Responses to “Shreya Ranjan- The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses”
Tory Mogelof
I liked how you connected football to your argument in an entertaining and purposeful way. This week Oklahoma approved the first religious charter school, meaning it will receive government funding. Do you think this will be found unconstitutional?
Connor Smyth
I like how you expressed both of these clauses visually and verbally. I wonder how these clauses be interpreted differently with the continuous growth of our country.
Jason Joseph
It is interesting how public schools are seen as federal.
Do you think all religions should have the right to be practiced even if their religion involves breaking the law?
jojo
I really liked your video because the animations were very captivating, and the connections you made to modern-day topics were concise. Why do you think that certain governments prohibit certain religious symbols or practices over others, doesn’t that violate this clause?
c26mn
I love all of your animations, especially the football ones! How do you believe this Clause could be better clarified in situations such as Kennedy v Bremerton School District and Santa Fe School District v Doe?
Sam Worthington
Great video! I really enjoyed the art and animations. It was also extremely informative. Your analysis of the differences between public religious support and private religious support was rather interesting. Moreover, I think Santa Fe School District v. Doe was a case that had interesting ramifications for free exercise and establishment. I did have one question: to what extent does the government protect freedom of religion? For example, during COVID this issue came up with various religious groups not wanting to get vaccines. How does the government stride the conflict between their freedom of religion and the greater utilitarian needs of society?
Mujtaba Raja
Shreya, this is absolutely excellent. Your written component is very strong; you’re an incredible writer. How do you think this could be changed in order to prevent Islamophobia if it were passed in France?