Introduction
In Plano, Texas, families of several elementary school children sued the Texas school district for religious discrimination and impeding on exclusive rights and freedoms provided for in the first amendment of the constitution. According to the parents, the school allowed for winter and birthday parties but excluded Christmas parties. Also, the administrators and Principals of the Texas school district seemed to abhor the very reference of the Christian religion, which extended to the use of red and green colors, usually associated with Christmas (Spakovsky, 2011).
Instead of admitting their grievous mistakes and seeking amendment, the Texas school district administrators compounded their errors by trying to justify their actions, which have seen the eight-year-old case, work its way up to the Federal Appellate Court. On 28 October 2011, the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Texas school district, citing that they violated the constitution by acting against elementary school student Jonathan Morgan, in trying to prevent his freedom of speech, which he sought to signify on marked candy canes (Kellog, 2011).
Despite this massive win, the Fifth Circuit granted an en banc review of the case which in effect, means that the offenders may be granted immunity if the entire court consents. In this paper, constitutional issues arising, in this case, will be highlighted, not to mention both sides of the suit and their understanding of the first amendment, about society and religion.
Constitutional Issues Arising
Religion is greatly provided for in the First Amendment of the United States constitution. Two clauses, the establishment clause, and the free exercise clause make up the religion clauses of the first amendment. The establishment cause has had many interpretations, all in favor of pruning congress’ powers to either limit or impose religion. The first amendment denotes that congress shall not make any law respecting a particular religion. This means that congress cannot establish a national religion, or aid its preference by the United States government. The free exercise clause on the other hand, has always been interpreted to indicate that Congress has no power whatsoever, to prohibit the free exercise of a particular religion. In the first amendment, the free exercise clause completes the statement emphasizing the establishment clause.
Considering the extent to which the first amendment protects the right to religious affiliation and expression, it is apparent, that the two Texas elementary schools mentioned in this case as defendants, acted in outright violation of these constitutional provisions. As stated by David Walls, every school official realizes that engaging in religious discrimination viewpoints, infringes upon the constitutional rights of students to freely and rightfully express their beliefs (Walls, 2011). It is important to realize the difference between religious beliefs and religious practices.
How Both Sides of the Debate Understand the Constitution, the First Amendment and the Relationship between Religion and Society
The plaintiff in the candy cane case (families of the elementary school students) have made it clear that violations were made against their children’s rights to freedom of expression and religion. The Principal’s mentioned in the suit, have been also, accused of trying to impose religious biases on Christianity whilst permitting other festivities not associated with Christianity in the school, thus clearly indicating their standpoint.
As mentioned earlier, the First Amendment permits the freedom of religious affiliation and expression. This includes the allowance of religious celebrations in any part of the United States, the school not excluded. However, as stated by Spakovsky, one of the schools indicted in this suit, clearly prohibits the reference of the Christian religion, not to mention any symbols depicting it, inside and outside the school premises. (Spakovsky, 2011).
One might argue that within school compounds, the school administrators may have some right, but one parent and their child were harassed by one Principal when she went to plead for permission to celebrate Christmas outside the school premises, which is an outright violation. On the other hand, the schools’ defense team has consistently argued that elementary school children were too young to have First Amendment rights.
This argument if pursued in favor of the defendants would have according to Bill Kellog, spelled doom for the rights of over 42 million such students across the nation (Kellog, 2011). The defendants seem to be oblivious of the fact that the First Amendment does not categorize in terms of age, but nationality, and the students whom they claim to be young and therefore unworthy of First Amendment rights, are United States Citizens.
Personal Perspective and Conclusion
The First Amendment designates that every person who is a citizen of the United States has the freedom of religious expression and affiliation. School going children are not excluded and thus the basis upon which the defendants present their case is unfounded and corrupting. While some might argue in favor of qualified immunity, I sincerely think that the two Texas schools mentioned in this case hampered the very rights of students from expressing their religious beliefs, which amounts to constitutional infringement of their rights and freedoms provided for in the First Amendment.
Also, the Principal’s and administrators being public officials, understood clearly that engaging in religious discrimination viewpoint was unconstitutional, and assuming that they could engage in such utterances and actions without responsibility, was in effect, sending a wrong message to the entire nation, not to mention hurting the strides made in promoting religious freedom of expression (Walls, 2011).
Works Cited
Kellog, B. Candy Cane Case Comes to a Close. American Family News Network, 2011. Web.
Spakovsky. V. H. The Candy-Cane Cops. The Heritage Network, 2011. Web.
Walls, D. Infamous Candy Cane Case Appealed to the US Supreme Court. Web.