Final Exam Christ. & Citizen.

Everson v. Board of Education

Issue – Can taxpayer money be used to reimburse parents for transportation costs to send their children to private religious schools?

Rule – The First Amendment has created a “high and impregnable” wall between “church and state,” but the program at issue here does not “breach” the wall.

School District of Abington v. Schempp (1963)

Issue – Can a public school day begin with a Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s prayer, even if students are allowed to opt-out?

Rule – Bible reading and prayer as part of a public school curriculum is unconstitutional because the “purpose and primary effect of the enactment” is religious in nature.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

Issue – Are state government programs which reimburse educational expenses and salaries for secular subjects in private religious schools a violation of the Establishment Clause?

Rule – These programs are not permissible under the Establishment Clause, because the amount of government surveillance necessary to ensure that money was not used for non-secular purposes would foster an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Principles of when religious displays are permissible on government property

Historical or beside other religious displays

Principles of when prayer is allowed in government settings

to open meetings or in public court

Ministerial exception

Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC (2012) – employees who are classified by ministers by either churches or religious employers cannot sue under employment discrimination law​

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (2020) – the ministerial exception is broadened to include employees whose duties contribute to the religious mission of the employer

Kennedy v. Bremerton

A school district’s attempts to discipline a football coach for praying in a private capacity on the field after games is a violation of the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses. Among other issues with the ruling, the dissenters claimed that the coach was not actually functioning in a private capacity when he prayed.

The Court effectively overruled the Lemon test in this case, saying that the Court had “long ago abandoned” the “abstract” and “ahistorical” test. The Court adopted a new test based on “historical practices and understandings” and “original meaning and history.”

Definition of religion

United States v. Ballard (1944) – religion must be defined by the sincerity with which beliefs are held, not the truth of them​

United States v. Seeger (1965) – “a given belief that is sincere and meaning [that] occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to…the orthodox belief in God”

Belief/action distinction

Reynolds v. United States (1879) – religious belief cannot be regulated, but actions that flow from that belief can be regulated if they are “in violation of social duties or subversive of the good order”

Sherbert-Yoder test

The compelling government interest/least restrictive means test is born. But note two interesting arguments from dissent: this economic burden was light compared to the burden upheld in Braunfeld, and this case actually gives religion favored status.

Employment Division v. Smith

Issue – Can the state government implement a neutrally applicable ban on peyote that does not allow for an exemption for use in religious ceremonies?

Rule – Free exercise rights do not “relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with ‘a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).’

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

Issue – Does the Smith test apply when a law specifically targets a religious group?

Rule – Application of the Smith test requires a law to be both neutral and generally applicable. The law in this case is neither, so strict scrutiny applies.

Most-favored nation status (from Tandon v. Newsom)

Tandon v. Newsom (2021) represented a significant shift in the Court’s free exercise jurisprudence, as it modified the Smith test by giving so-called “most favored nation” status to religion. Essentially, if any secular activity is treated more favorably than a religious one, then the regulation must be subjected to strict scrutiny.

Corvino’s Scrutiny Argument

Corvino wants burdens on free exercise of religion to be subjected to intermediate scrutiny (important government interest/substantially related to interest) rather than government regulation (compelling government interest/least restrictive means/narrowly tailored to interest). See 2.2.4 on pp. 50-51 for more on this.

The Puritan Mistake

Corvino describes the “puritan mistake” as saying “It was liberty for me, but not for thee.”

Minimal v. Nonminimal burdens

Corvino argues that since laws ought to be applied consistently, no exemption is warranted save under limited conditions. The justification for the law concerned, the goods at stake, the burdens the law imposes and the harm its enforcement might cause, are key factors. Exemptions might be appropriate where an otherwise good law would produce serious harm, or prove disproportionately burdensome upon minorities or self-defeating if enforced upon them

Material v. dignitary harms

The latter, which involves treating someone as being of inferior moral standing, receives much of its force from the social context. For much of US history, discrimination against LGBTQ persons was not merely tolerated but legally-sanctioned, and contemporary non-discrimination protections grant "a place at the table in public life" to a "long marginalized" group

The Fragility of Integrity

The state's obligation to protect religious freedom precludes, Anderson and Girgis argue, direct attacks and needless incidental limits. If a law penalises someone for meeting their perceived moral or religious obligations, its application should merit extra scrutiny because the underlying goods -- religion and moral integrity -- are more fragile than others (being compelled to flout even a single moral conviction can shatter the good of integrity).

A More Precise Conscience Rule (from Anderson/Girgis

Taking this last wrinkle into account, then, we can make our proposed legal rule more precise: The decision to apply a regulation to someone should trigger heightened scrutiny whenever that application by itself would raise the difficulty to her of keeping her moral or religious obligations.

The Target of Discrimination (Identity v. Action)

In the debate over LGBT anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty, what is the actual target of discrimination? Actions or identity? And is this a different target than, for instance, the race discrimination debate

1) Join a Church

one of first forms of political engagement happen, teaches us how to be kind and represent Christianity outside of the church environment

2) Fear God and Get Wisdom

prioritize long term gain, remember that God is above politics

3) Obey and Honor the Government

honor laws and the government unless they ask you to do something against your faith

4) Make Use of Whatever Political Stewardship You Have

use the power granted top you by birth or career, even if its just voting

5) Know Your Political Culture’s Supreme Values

Know what your culture prioritizes and connect on that. For America this is probably freedom

6) Be a Principled Pragmatists in Your Arguments

For the purposes of biblical justice, invoke any moral arguments that work

7) Be Willing to Invoke God in Your Argument

Neutral moral law

8) Practice Conventional Kindness

Be nice

9) Know your party’s strengths, weaknesses, and idolatrous trajectories

Understand your parties shortcomings and what they might put before God