9359102 1

9359102

Mr. Jason King

AP Seminar

1 December 2016

Fragility of Religious Liberty

George Carlin once stated, “Religion is like a pair of shoes… Find one that fits for you,

but don’t make me wear your shoes.” Since the foundation of the United States of America, the

religiously diverse population has been able to make personal decisions about their beliefs.

However, it can be observed that the government, a presumably secular establishment, has been

partial to certain religious groups. This is due to many different factors, such as personal bias in

elected officials and the ambiguity of the United States Constitution. According to the

Constitution, all U.S. citizens are allowed certain rights, including the freedom of religion (U.S.

Constitution). This sets the foundation of religious liberty, and makes it the citizens’ right and

the government’s responsibility to uphold it. However, even though there are protection laws in

place, religious liberty is still being restricted by certain governmental actions. In particular, the

government’s symbolic representation of certain religions has affected the nation as a whole.

In the 1800s, an estimated eighty percent of the population attended a church, which

implies that at least eighty percent were certifiably Christian people (“Religion and the

Founding”). Other religions, such as Deism and Judaism, were minorities in the United States.

Despite the overwhelming majority of Christianity, the United States still is a secular nation. In

the First Amendment of the Constitution it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an
 9359102 2

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (U.S. Constitution). This

means that the government cannot show partiality towards any religion, or prohibit the free

practice of them; that is referred to as the Establishment Clause (“Establishment Clause”).

Although religious bias is righteously outlawed, governmental organizations do have a few

powers that can act as ‘loopholes’. Governmental speech allows for the government to “speak for

itself” as long as it does not infringe the speech of others (“Government Speech”). For example,

if the government allows private groups to hold rallies in a public park, they cannot disallow a

White Supremacist rally in said park. However, the government is also not obligated to support

the White Supremacists because that is their ‘government speech’ (“Government Speech”).

Government speech is still regulated, however, mainly by the Establishment Clause in the First

Amendment.

Due to the ambiguity of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause, along with

government speech, there have been many instances in which conflicts had to be taken to high

level courts in order to make constitutional decisions. Those cases pertained to religious liberty

and the endorsement of one religion over others. In California, there stands a wooden cross on

the Mojave National Reserve that was erected by veterans in 1932. In 1999, a former employee,

Frank Buono, filed a lawsuit against the district court in California when the building of a

Buddhist shrine near the cross was denied. He lobbied for the removal of the cross, and won his

case. However, Congress decided to make Sunrise Rock, where the cross stands, a National

Memorial and barred its dismantling using federal funds. Buono then moved to enforce the

previous court decision pertaining to the removal of the cross, but this movement was eventually

denied by the Supreme Court. The justices concluded that the district court did not consider the

context of the monument and that their decision on making Sunrise Rock a National Monument
 9359102 3

was to be respected (“Salazar”). The dissenting justices stated that the district court was correct

in not enforcing Congress’ decision about the National Monument because it was made in order

to protect the cross, therefore violating the Establishment Clause (“Salazar”). Many people still

believe that the cross and Sunrise Rock’s status as a National Monument is unconstitutional, and

that it should not be standing while other religious monuments are denied (“Salazar”). Another

similar case was in Arkansas; the government officials were attempting to erect a Ten

Commandments statue in their state capitol, but denied the erection of a Hindu statue in the same

area (Feldman). The government is allowed to deny the Hindu statue due to government speech,

but that called into question the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments statue. This case

was taken to Supreme Court and the plans for the statue were eventually canceled. The

government is always allowed to portray their own beliefs, just as in Texas when they did not

allow the display of Confederate flags on license plates (Feldman). Although, government

speech has one major restriction: they cannot endorse certain religions, and this is due to the

Establishment Clause (Feldman). Erecting these statues and symbols over others can be seen as a

governmental bias, therefore violating the clause and infringing religious liberty.

A very large number of references to a higher power -- mainly “God” -- are made in

different government documents, mainly laws. These range from court procedures to the Boy

Scouts of America Equal Access Act (“68 References”). There is a plethora of religions present

in the world, especially in the diverse population of the United States. Many of these religions

are not monotheistic, as some are polytheistic or do not worship any deities. By referencing a

single “God” in any legal document, the government is supporting one group of religions over

many others. Even on the United States currency there is a section that states, “In God We

Trust”. Some explain this blatant promotion of religion as just a symbolization of the moral
 9359102 4

principles in America, and that it does not restrict the practice of any other religion. Although

many people do not see the references as very influential, religion is not suited to mingle closely

with the government. That is why there is a clause stating that the government cannot endorse

one religion over the other. Secularity is the key to not restricting any sort of worship, and giving

all religions organizations a chance to flourish. Forcing a person to recite a certain phrase or

adhere to a law driven by certain religious beliefs is restricting the religious liberty of said

person. Morality and worship are two different things, as religion is not necessary to be a

righteous and just person.

On June 14, 1954, Dwight Eisenhower signed Public Law, which put into place the

phrase “one Nation under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance (“Is the Pledge”). This single

clause adds a whole new element to the pledge, in addition to the patriotic sense. The pledge

becomes religious practice along with an affirmation of national identity (“Is the Pledge”).

Dwight Eisenhower stated, “... in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons

which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war...”, when he

signed the Public Law that put the phrase into place (“Is the Pledge”). His reasoning was that the

world is riddled with cruelty, and that Americans need to strengthen their core values as world

citizens. This could also be seen as a propaganda tool, as these actions were taken during the

Cold War Era. Although, the addition to the pledge is completely unnecessary and in violation of

the Establishment Clause. There are other ways to create a definitive identity for the nation,

rather than implying and supporting a nationwide practice of monotheism. The pledge is meant

to strengthen national values and be applicable to every citizen, not those who worship a single

“God”.
 9359102 5

In the world, there are countless religions that are practiced every day. American citizens

are very diverse when pertaining to religious belief, as seventy percent are Christian, two percent

are Jewish, one percent are Muslim, twenty percent are “unaffiliated” (this includes atheism and

agnosticism), one percent are Buddhist, and one percent are Hindu (“Religious Landscape

Study”). Throughout the years, the religious demographic of the United States of America has

become more diversified, and it is projected to become even more so in the years to come. That

is why the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause exist, because there are many people

that need their religious liberty protected in order to conserve their beliefs. In order to do that, the

government must not show partiality towards any organization, as that would influence the

population and decrease opportunities for other religions. There are many observable instances in

which the government shows an unconstitutional bias, and one of the most prominent is

symbolic representations of religion in the government. To retain full religious liberty, the

partiality must be eliminated. The “one nation under God” clause in the Pledge of Allegiance

should be rectified, as it is a blatant display of religious partiality, and is quite uncomfortable for

thirty percent of the population to recite. In addition to that, changes should be made to certain

laws that refer to a higher power, considering the assumed secularity of the United States of

America. Also, educating the youth on all religions would be beneficial to the complete religious

tolerance throughout the nation (Dennett). The nation does not need any religious affiliation in

order to preserve its identity, because it is the citizens that make the nation what it is. Religious

liberty is one of the most important factors to life in America, and the effects of governmental

bias take a toll.

 9359102 6

Works Cited

“68 References to “God” in US Code.” ProCon,

undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000082. 2016.
 9359102 7

Dennett, Dan. “Let’s teach religion -- all religion -- in schools.” TED,

ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren/transcript?language=en. February

2006. Lecture.

“Establishment Clause”. Legal Information Institute,

law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause. 2016.

Feldman, Noah. “Rules Tangled on Religious Speech by Government.” ABQ Journal,

abqjournal.com/636017/rules-tangled-on-religious-speech-by-government.html. 29 Aug.

2015.

“Government Speech.” Legal Information Institute,

law.cornell.edu/wex/government_speech#. 2016.

“Is the Pledge of Allegiance a Religious Exercise?” ProCon,

undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000082. 2016.

“Marshall V. City of Warren.” ACLU, aclu.org/cases/marshall-v-city-warren. 23 Feb.

2015.

“Quotes About Freedom of Religion.” Goodreads, goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-

of-religion. 2016.

“Religion and the Founding of the American Public.” Library of Congress,

loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel02.html. 2016.

“Religious Landscape Study.” Pew Research Center, pewforum.org/religious-landscape-

study/. 2016.

“Salazar v. Buono.” ACLU, aclu.org/cases/salazar-v-buono. 28 April 2010.

“Salazar v. Buono.” Oyes, oyez.org/cases/2009/08-472. 20 November 2016.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. I.

 9359102 8

UN General Assembly. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. un.org/en/universal-

declaration-human-rights/. 10 Dec. 1948.