Raising a Stein to the First Amendment Part 1: Delving Into the Freedom of Religion

Transcript

WEBVTT

00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:19.149
Finally, I got a mnemonic phrase that I think will resonate with all of us so we can remember the five freedoms by saying raise Stein's for a pint, so raise religion, stein's speech, or press a assembly and P petition.

00:00:19.149 --> 00:00:20.551
Raise Stein's for a pint.

00:00:20.551 --> 00:00:29.894
If you want to remember your five freedoms, the first amendment gives you pour a pint.

00:00:29.894 --> 00:00:34.201
If you want to remember your five freedoms, the First Amendment gives you Welcome back to the United.

00:00:34.222 --> 00:00:35.926
She Stands podcast the show that brings kindness and women into politics.

00:00:35.926 --> 00:00:44.723
I'm Ashley and I'm Sarah, and we're two women from Ohio who are here to become more educated about American politics and build a community so we can all get involved and make an impact together.

00:00:47.780 --> 00:00:59.347
We hope we'll inspire and empower you along the way.

00:00:59.347 --> 00:01:04.751
Hello and welcome back to another episode of the United she Stands podcast.

00:01:04.751 --> 00:01:15.677
We've had it in the plan for a while now to do some episodes breaking down some of the amendments, so we're really excited today to do just that with what will be one of several episodes on the First Amendment.

00:01:15.677 --> 00:01:19.853
But before we dive in, sarah, what?

00:01:19.873 --> 00:01:26.436
are we drinking Miller Lite?

00:01:26.436 --> 00:01:31.150
Oh yum, I'm kidding, I'm not drinking Miller Lite, but I'm drinking something comparable to Miller Lite, because I'm drinking water.

00:01:31.209 --> 00:01:32.694
Same water for me as well.

00:01:32.694 --> 00:01:37.325
Nothing crazy going on, we just literally weren't feeling the beer today.

00:01:38.268 --> 00:01:44.224
I know I think we're sick, something's wrong with us, I don't know, just not into it right now.

00:01:44.224 --> 00:01:55.736
Okay, so the First Amendment was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights which, as a reminder, is the first 10 amendments to our US Constitution.

00:01:55.736 --> 00:02:03.424
So what is the First Amendment?

00:02:03.424 --> 00:02:03.745
What does it do?

00:02:03.745 --> 00:02:06.140
Well, we're going to start by reading it to you, and don't worry, it's one sentence, so really nothing crazy here.

00:02:06.840 --> 00:02:23.627
The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

00:02:23.627 --> 00:02:25.191
That's it, folks.

00:02:25.191 --> 00:02:26.473
That's the First Amendment.

00:02:26.473 --> 00:02:34.431
That one sentence right there gives us five freedoms Religion, speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition.

00:02:34.431 --> 00:02:37.348
So now we all know what the First Amendment is.

00:02:37.348 --> 00:02:38.945
Right, we can wrap the episode.

00:02:38.945 --> 00:02:42.174
I think that goes down as our quickest episode to date.

00:02:42.174 --> 00:02:43.460
Oh, just kidding.

00:02:43.460 --> 00:02:48.766
Even though it's one sentence, there's so much that goes into each clause of that sentence.

00:02:48.766 --> 00:02:55.681
So obviously we're here to break them down for you and to talk about the interpretation from the courts of this amendment over the years.

00:02:56.783 --> 00:03:04.722
But before we do that, sarah, without looking, can you name the five again, the five freedoms, without looking at our document?

00:03:05.502 --> 00:03:12.811
yeah, um speech, religion, press peaceably assemble, aka.

00:03:12.811 --> 00:03:16.615
Um, what's the uh protest?

00:03:16.615 --> 00:03:18.860
Um, oh my gosh, what's the last one?

00:03:18.860 --> 00:03:19.603
What did I already say?

00:03:20.044 --> 00:03:23.290
petition well, that was the last one petition.

00:03:23.290 --> 00:03:23.812
You did it.

00:03:23.812 --> 00:03:25.163
You did it, you actually did really well.

00:03:25.163 --> 00:03:29.500
So I'm like, like I would say, like sometimes you know how it is when we read these or write these.

00:03:29.500 --> 00:03:30.562
I like don't retain it.

00:03:30.562 --> 00:03:35.181
So I was thinking and I'm like, okay, for some reason, first of all, I just feel like I should know this.

00:03:35.181 --> 00:03:42.311
But also one day, down the road, when I'm sitting in a bar and trivia comes on, if I can't get this question right, I'm going to be pissed.

00:03:42.491 --> 00:03:44.993
So I was like, how can I make it?

00:03:44.993 --> 00:03:46.056
So we make sure we remember this.

00:03:46.056 --> 00:03:52.514
And I thought so what if we made a fun mnemonic phrase that made this easy to remember?

00:03:52.514 --> 00:03:55.628
And I would love to tell you that I came up with this on my own, but I didn't.

00:03:55.628 --> 00:04:00.972
I used chat GPT and I had to go several times at her because she kept giving me really dumb stuff.

00:04:00.972 --> 00:04:14.312
But finally I got a mnemonic phrase that I think will resonate with all of us, so we can remember the five freedoms by saying raise Stein's, pour a pint.

00:04:14.312 --> 00:04:21.992
So raise religion, stein's speech pour press A assembly and P petition Raise Stein's, pour a pint.

00:04:21.992 --> 00:04:24.444
If you want to remember your five freedoms, the First Amendment gives you.

00:04:25.125 --> 00:04:27.689
I have never been more impressed with AI in my entire life.

00:04:27.689 --> 00:04:30.014
That is so awesome.

00:04:30.153 --> 00:04:30.735
I know.

00:04:30.735 --> 00:04:34.329
So anyway, don't say we never did anything for you.

00:04:34.329 --> 00:04:37.119
There you go, a beer-themed mnemonic phrase.

00:04:37.119 --> 00:04:39.629
You're so welcome.

00:04:40.132 --> 00:04:42.079
We will take our payment in beer, of course.

00:04:42.721 --> 00:04:45.591
Yes exactly Okay, moving on.

00:04:45.591 --> 00:04:54.149
So today we are actually going to just break down one of these freedoms, one little clause from the First Amendment, and the freedom we're going to talk about today is religion.

00:04:54.149 --> 00:04:58.930
So maybe you're thinking how could we make a whole episode on one little clause out of the five?

00:04:58.930 --> 00:05:07.271
Well, you're in for a real treat, because there's just so much that goes into interpreting our laws, and the religion clause from the First Amendment is no exception.

00:05:07.271 --> 00:05:08.733
So let's dive in.

00:05:09.355 --> 00:05:09.754
Here we go.

00:05:09.754 --> 00:05:26.173
The first two provisions of the First Amendment are known as the religion clauses, specifically the establishment clause, which is Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and the free exercise clause or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

00:05:26.173 --> 00:05:36.156
The establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or taking actions that favor one religion over another or over a non-religion.

00:05:36.156 --> 00:05:41.593
The free exercise clause prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

00:05:42.334 --> 00:05:47.887
So, like we said earlier, this amendment was ratified in 1791, but all states did not apply it right away.

00:05:47.887 --> 00:05:56.266
It was not until later, when court rulings made it applicable to the states by incorporation through the 14th Amendment, that it was a right protected at both the state and federal level.

00:05:56.266 --> 00:06:06.596
Together with the constitutional provision that prohibits religious tests as a qualification for office the Constitution of the United States these clauses ensure individual freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

00:06:07.004 --> 00:06:14.016
It seems sort of straightforward but, like many clauses in our Constitution, the interpretation and meaning has been debated since they were ratified.

00:06:14.016 --> 00:06:21.651
So let's take a look at some of the most consequential court cases that have interpreted these two clauses specifically, and we'll start with the Establishment Clause.

00:06:21.651 --> 00:06:26.935
The first one we'll note here is Everson v Board of Education in 1947.

00:06:26.935 --> 00:06:30.485
The first one we'll note here is Everson v Board of Education in 1947.

00:06:30.485 --> 00:06:59.810
No-transcript that the law was constitutional because the transportation reimbursements were provided to all students regardless of religion and the reimbursements were made directly to parents and not to any religious institution.

00:06:59.810 --> 00:07:08.005
This case also applied the Establishment Clause to the actions of state governments, which is really the landmark, impactful piece of this ruling.

00:07:08.687 --> 00:07:11.055
The second court case is Torcaso v Watkins.

00:07:11.055 --> 00:07:12.380
In 1961.

00:07:12.380 --> 00:07:22.154
The court considered whether the establishment clause of the First Amendment was violated by a Maryland requirement that a candidate for public office declare a belief in God to be eligible for the position.

00:07:22.154 --> 00:07:31.557
In a unanimous decision, the court held that the requirement violated the establishment clause by giving preference to candidates who believed in God and were willing to state their beliefs over other candidates.

00:07:31.557 --> 00:07:41.100
This Maryland requirement effectively aided religions involving a belief in God at the expense of religions or beliefs that do not, a position that a state is expressly prohibited from taking.

00:07:41.764 --> 00:07:43.367
Next we have Engel v Vitale in 1962.

00:07:43.367 --> 00:07:45.048
Engel v Vitale in 1962.

00:07:45.048 --> 00:07:54.079
The court in this case looked at whether the daily reading of a state-composed non-denominational prayer in school violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

00:07:54.079 --> 00:08:18.555
In a 6-1 decision the court ruled that New York's official prayer to begin the school day was an unconstitutional violation of Abington Township, pennsylvania v Shemp in 1963 and Murray v Curlett in 1963, which were around requiring prayer, readings of the Bible or other required religious activities in school.

00:08:18.555 --> 00:08:23.552
All decided that these types of activities violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

00:08:24.012 --> 00:08:36.657
Apart from these landmark rulings, there are three other court cases we're going to touch on because the decisions from those cases have created tests that the courts have made up and used to help clarify throughout history if the Establishment Clause was being violated.

00:08:36.657 --> 00:08:42.928
There are some other tests, but the three most commonly used throughout history have been the Lemon, the Endorsement and the Coercion Tests.

00:08:42.928 --> 00:08:46.495
So first, lemon v Kurtzman in 1971.

00:08:47.096 --> 00:08:57.833
The court considered whether a Pennsylvania law reimbursing religious schools with state funds for textbooks and teacher salaries for non-public, non-secular schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

00:08:57.833 --> 00:09:08.732
In an 8-0 decision, the court struck down the Pennsylvania law as in violation of the Establishment Clause, finding that the statute constituted an excessive government entanglement with religion.

00:09:08.732 --> 00:09:18.278
They came to this conclusion using a three-pronged test which determined a statute as constitutional if, number one, it has a primarily secular purpose.

00:09:18.278 --> 00:09:22.719
Number two, its principal effect neither aids nor inhibits religion.

00:09:22.719 --> 00:09:26.909
And number three, government and religion are not excessively entangled.

00:09:26.909 --> 00:09:45.945
This three-pronged test is known as the Lemon Test and this was used in many court cases throughout history, but the court ultimately said Lemon was abandoned in a 2022 opinion, which is Kennedy v Bremerton School District, which we will be discussing in more detail here in a few minutes 2022, that's pretty recent, pretty recent.

00:09:46.505 --> 00:09:55.971
The second test we're going to talk about is the endorsement test In Lynch v Donnelly, issued in 1984, justice Sandra Day O'Connor suggested a clarification of Lemon.

00:09:55.971 --> 00:10:01.211
She argued that the court should ask whether Citi's Christmas display had endorsed Christianity.

00:10:01.211 --> 00:10:10.082
Saying that the first and second prongs of the Lemon test relate to endorsement, justice O'Connor stated the purpose prong of the Lemon Test relate to endorsement.

00:10:10.082 --> 00:10:16.496
Justice O'Connor stated the purpose prong of the Lemon Test asks whether government's actual purpose is to endorse or disapprove of religion.

00:10:16.496 --> 00:10:24.038
The effect prong asks whether, irrespective of government's actual purpose, the practice under review in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval.

00:10:24.038 --> 00:10:32.628
In a later concurrence, justice O'Connor stated that endorsement should be judged by whether a reasonable observer would think the government is endorsing religion.

00:10:32.628 --> 00:10:37.967
The Supreme Court as a whole employed this endorsement variation on Lemon in a number of cases.

00:10:38.389 --> 00:10:40.634
And lastly, we're going to talk about the coercion test.

00:10:40.634 --> 00:10:45.315
This test is used particularly in the context of government-sponsored prayer practices.

00:10:45.315 --> 00:10:53.195
For these types of events, the Supreme Court has sometimes evaluated Establishment Clause challenges by looking for impermissible government coercion.

00:10:53.195 --> 00:11:05.876
Although the court has said the Establishment Clause is concerned with many aspects of the relationship between government and religion, at a minimum the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.

00:11:06.485 --> 00:11:08.004
So real quick, let's start with this.

00:11:08.004 --> 00:11:14.476
To coerce is to compel to an act or choice or to achieve by force or threat.

00:11:14.476 --> 00:11:16.648
Now let's look at some court cases.

00:11:16.648 --> 00:11:26.695
There are several court cases where the Supreme Court has held that the government violates the Establishment Clause where there is coercion, including indirect coercive pressure.

00:11:26.695 --> 00:11:38.715
In Engel v Vitale, 1962, the court clarified that a law requiring a specific prayer to be recited in schools was unconstitutional, even though students could opt out.

00:11:38.715 --> 00:11:49.158
Similarly, in Lee v Wiseman in 1992, the court held that a high school violated the establishment clause with its involvement in prayers at high school graduations.

00:11:49.158 --> 00:12:01.450
The school had decided that an invocation and a benediction should be given, chosen the religious participant to give the invocation and offered guidelines directing the content of the prayers.

00:12:02.091 --> 00:12:08.293
The court's opinion stressed the heightened concerns with the subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools.

00:12:09.437 --> 00:12:20.269
Under the circumstances, the court said that the dissenter of high school age would have a reasonable perception that she is being forced by the state to pray in a manner her conscience will not allow.

00:12:21.131 --> 00:12:26.346
Another example is in Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe in 2000.

00:12:26.346 --> 00:12:57.514
The court again held that a school policy permitting student-led prayer at football games created impermissible coercion, under the supervision of school faculty and pursuant to a school policy that explicitly and implicitly encourages public prayer, nonetheless had the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship.

00:12:57.514 --> 00:13:13.745
So, all this to say, the Supreme Court has pretty regularly upheld that prayer in school, when led or facilitated by the school, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because, basically, students can feel coerced into participating, which honestly makes sense.

00:13:13.745 --> 00:13:16.855
Teachers and faculty are in charge and students are taught to listen to them.

00:13:16.855 --> 00:13:23.067
This all tracks to us, but one thing to note here is that a student on their own praying is not what these court cases are about.

00:13:23.067 --> 00:13:32.768
If a student wants to bow their head and pray at their desk or whatever, that is their right to do so.

00:13:32.788 --> 00:13:35.980
So, moving on from school-specific examples, the Supreme Court has reached different conclusions with respect to policies involving adults.

00:13:35.980 --> 00:13:52.006
For example, in Lee, which we mentioned above, the Supreme Court distinguished a prior case that rejected an establishment clause challenged to prayers at state legislative sessions, noting the obvious differences between a session where adults are free to enter and leave and a graduation ceremony, the one school event most important for the student to attend.

00:13:52.006 --> 00:14:06.528
Also, in a case where parents chose whether or not to allow their students to attend the meetings of a private religious club, the Supreme Court held that the school would not create impermissible coercion merely by allowing the meetings to occur on school premises after school hours, aka your religion club.

00:14:06.528 --> 00:14:09.514
That is fully optional, is not a violation of the establishment clause.

00:14:09.916 --> 00:14:20.794
Now, lastly, here we're going to go back and discuss Kennedy v Remerton School District from 2022, which is, if you remember we said, ultimately stated that the Lemon Test was dead.

00:14:21.136 --> 00:14:29.437
In Kennedy, the court considered whether a school would have violated the establishment clause by allowing a football coach to pray at the 50-yard line immediately after football games.

00:14:29.437 --> 00:14:33.557
The school argued that the coach impermissibly coerced students to join his prayers.

00:14:33.557 --> 00:14:55.599
Noting that the coach had previously led students in prayer before games and conducted overtly religious inspirational talks after games, and some students felt pressured to participate in the earlier prayers, the court concluded those arguments were not relevant because the school's disciplinary action against the coach focused on later instances, when the coach did not seek to direct any prayers to students.

00:14:55.599 --> 00:15:06.673
In comparison to Santa Fe, the court concluded that the coach's prayers were not publicly broadcasted or recited to a captive audience and students were not expected to participate.

00:15:06.673 --> 00:15:12.402
People who saw or heard his prayer on the 50-yard line could be offended, but not coerced, according to the court.

00:15:12.402 --> 00:15:23.205
The court further said that the school could not require teachers to avoid any visible religious expression because that would give preference to secular activity that would violate their to secular activity that would violate their right to freedom of religion.

00:15:23.625 --> 00:15:31.543
More broadly, kennedy said that in the future courts should evaluate establishment clause challenges by reference to historical practices and understandings.

00:15:31.543 --> 00:15:39.640
The Supreme Court acknowledged that while coercion was among the foremost hallmarks of religious establishments the framers sought to prohibit when they adopted the First Amendment.

00:15:39.640 --> 00:15:47.350
The justices have sometimes disagreed on what exactly qualifies as impermissible coercion in light of the original meaning of the Establishment Clause.

00:15:47.350 --> 00:15:59.922
The court did not expressly resolve those open disputes, ruling instead that in Kennedy the coach's private religious exercise did not come close to crossing any line one might imagine separating protected private expression from government coercion.

00:16:00.344 --> 00:16:01.687
So where does that leave us today?

00:16:01.687 --> 00:16:04.654
Well, kennedy just happened in 2022.

00:16:04.654 --> 00:16:14.374
So the Lemon Test is dead and the court said in that case that, moving forward, the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by reference to historical practices and understandings.

00:16:14.374 --> 00:16:24.054
The analysis in Kennedy referred to the court's prior cases on coercion, suggesting that the coercion test will also provide an appropriate mode of analysis for future cases.

00:16:24.054 --> 00:16:28.163
So, in summary, the coercion test is what the courts should use.

00:16:28.163 --> 00:16:30.347
Going forward folks, at least for now.

00:16:31.871 --> 00:16:32.413
We did it.

00:16:32.413 --> 00:16:34.485
We did it.

00:16:34.740 --> 00:16:37.889
We got all the way through the freedom of religion.

00:16:37.908 --> 00:16:42.326
Yeah, and we said the word coercion 80 000 times.

00:16:43.008 --> 00:16:47.769
okay so let's, do yes, let's do a quick recap.

00:16:47.769 --> 00:16:54.975
All that stuff we just talked through basically says the religion clause is made up of two clauses the establishment and the free exercise clause.

00:16:54.975 --> 00:17:08.186
The establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or taking actions that favor one religion over another or over a non-religion, and the free exercise clause prevents the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

00:17:08.186 --> 00:17:17.366
So I sort of think of them as the establishment clause stops the government from telling you what to believe in in places where they hold power public schools, government buildings etc.

00:17:17.366 --> 00:17:24.031
And the free exercise clause makes it so you can practice your religion however you see fit, as long as it does not impede on others' rights.

00:17:24.031 --> 00:17:29.663
Aka you can pray in school or in public to whichever God you believe in, or if you don't believe in any, that's protected too.

00:17:29.663 --> 00:17:37.150
So there it is, the religion clause of the First Amendment, only one out of the five freedoms the First Amendment gives us.

00:17:37.880 --> 00:17:39.522
And we're going through the rest of them today, right?

00:17:39.824 --> 00:17:41.266
Yeah, so don't worry.

00:17:41.266 --> 00:17:44.050
Even though we didn't cover them today, guess what's coming in the future?

00:17:44.050 --> 00:17:51.929
More you got it, additional episodes are coming for our other freedoms the First Amendment protects, so I'm sure everyone's just as excited as we are about that.

00:17:52.400 --> 00:17:57.827
Thanks for tuning in this week and if you learned something today, share this episode with with a friend who you think would enjoy it.

00:17:57.827 --> 00:17:59.750
We'll catch y'all next time.

00:17:59.750 --> 00:18:07.517
Thanks for joining us for today's episode.

00:18:07.517 --> 00:18:09.126
We really appreciate the support.

00:18:09.859 --> 00:18:14.566
We would also really appreciate it if you hit the follow button and share this episode with anyone you think would enjoy it.

00:18:15.001 --> 00:18:17.846
And we'd like to thank Kevin Tanner, who edited this episode.

00:18:17.846 --> 00:18:29.423
If you're interested in learning more about him and his services, his website and Instagram are in the show notes.

00:18:29.423 --> 00:18:36.750
With that, we'll see you next week.

00:18:36.750 --> 00:18:47.141
Or the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress, redress, red dress.

00:18:48.102 --> 00:18:48.603
I think it's.

00:18:48.603 --> 00:18:55.089
I would have read it and petitioned the government for a redress Redress, okay, but I don't know.

00:18:55.089 --> 00:18:58.074
I feel like you should Google it Also.

00:18:58.074 --> 00:19:00.296
Don't kill me, but it's not peacefully.

00:19:03.980 --> 00:19:04.300
It's peaceably.

00:19:04.320 --> 00:19:14.102
I know it's a weird old timey talk what if we made a really fun and easy to remember with, like making it what?

00:19:14.102 --> 00:19:14.942
Sorry, let me start.

00:19:14.942 --> 00:19:16.164
What if I made it?

00:19:16.164 --> 00:19:22.517
Why I'm just trying to talk like I'm not even reading the paper right now?

00:19:23.097 --> 00:19:36.109
I couldn't tell because I was like wait, yeah, okay it was not until later, when court rulings made it applicable to the states by incorporation, through the 14th amendment, that it was so close.

00:19:36.109 --> 00:19:48.669
It was not until later, when court rulings made it applicable to the states by motherfucker okay, uh, what does that?

00:19:48.669 --> 00:19:49.549
Mean.

00:19:49.549 --> 00:19:50.991
It means.

00:19:50.991 --> 00:19:51.673
You just read the.

00:19:51.673 --> 00:19:53.721
It means to compel to, and do you mean?

00:19:53.721 --> 00:19:54.683
Did you say what does it mean?

00:19:55.184 --> 00:19:57.991
I did, and I understand that that sounded really silly.

00:19:57.991 --> 00:20:08.990
You just read the definition To compel to an act or choice or to achieve by force or threat, got it?

00:20:08.990 --> 00:20:11.313
We'll never forget that, ever again.

00:20:11.493 --> 00:20:14.517
Someone will have to coerce me into using this word ever again.

00:20:14.517 --> 00:20:17.827
Yeah, coerce it.

00:20:17.827 --> 00:20:22.059
Okay, I don't know why the dots are jesus christ.

00:20:25.647 --> 00:20:54.750
Honestly, when you read it, I was just like I don't really know why I did that the court's opinion stressed the heightened concerns with subtle core core I'm sorry, I'm trying not to laugh at you the analysis in Kennedy referred to the court's prior cases on coercion, suggesting that the corrosion test will be damn you're so close.

00:20:54.750 --> 00:20:56.994
I'm doing it over here.

00:20:56.994 --> 00:20:58.577
You never have to say this word again.

00:20:58.577 --> 00:21:01.588
After this sentence, I literally cannot be more thrilled.

00:21:01.588 --> 00:21:03.907
Could not be Okay.

00:21:03.907 --> 00:21:07.107
So, in summary, the core.

00:21:07.107 --> 00:21:09.125
Damn it, I didn't see it there.