For most state activity at least accidently also affects religious groups it is quite obvious that church-state separation cannot be demanded absolutely. Accordingly the task must be to determine when a state crosses the permissible line. It is hardly surprising that this line drawing is a matter of particular delicacy in the area of public education. Religion and education both form crucial cornerstones of shaping a youth’s personality. Apart from the parents it is often the state that undertakes the education of children. It is quite obvious that state neutrality and protection of religious freedom is particularly important in this area, where young children are strongly exposed to state influence. Accordingly many parents will keep a weary eye on the state’s non-interference with their children’s beliefs. On the other hand there are comprehensible reasons why religion may well have its place in the public educational system too. If religion plays such an important role in the self-development of adolescents does the positive freedom of religion not even dictate schools to allow students the expression of their belief in a larger community if they so wish? Moreover, it is undeniable that religions form a fundamental cornerstone of the development, identity and self-conception of almost every nation in the world. As such religion is part of a nation’s history the state as well as pupils and parents may have sound reasons to honour it in a collective. It is the essay’s goal to examine how different countries balance these conflicting interests in the setting of public schools. Mainly based on a comparison between the U.S. and Germany the essay will focus on two groups of cases the highest constitutional courts of both countries were confronted with. In the first body of cases the courts had to decide whether the official requirement of prayers in public schools violated the constitutions. The second group concerned the state ordered affixing of religious symbols – namely the Crucifix and the Ten Commandments – in public school classrooms. Additionally the essay contemplates a country that looks back at a relatively short tradition of a written Bill of Rights – New Zealand. Since there is only little religious freedom litigation in New Zealand the essay will confine itself to an outline of the relevant constitutional provisions followed by a prognosis as to what the outcome of a similar public school case would presumably be in New Zealand.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Freedom of Religion in the United States
A. The First Amendment
1. Addressee of the First Amendment
2. The Establishment Clause
3. What is the Test for Establishment
(a) Everson v Board of Education – The Doctrine of Strict Separation
(b) Lemon v Kurzman – The Three Prong Lemon Test
(c) Lynch v Donnelly – The Endorsement Test
(d) Lee v Weisman – The Coercion Test
4. The Free Exercise Clause
B. Religion in Public Schools
1. Prayers in Public School
(a) Engel v Vitale
(b) Abingdon v School District v Schempp
(c) Wallace v Jaffree
(d) Lee v Weisman
(e) Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe
2. Religious Symbols in Public Schools
C. Conclusion
III. Freedom of Religion in Germany
A. The Relationship between State and Church
B. Freedom of Religion – Article 4 GG
1. Article 4(1) – The Forum Internum
2. Article 4(2) – The Forum Externum
3. Limitations of Article 4
C. Religion in Public Schools
1. Prayers in Public Schools
2. Religious Symbols in Public Schools
(a) The Crucifix Decision – First Act
(b) The Crucifix Decision – Second Act
(c) The Crucifix Decision – Third Act
D. Conclusion
IV. Freedom of Religion in New Zealand
Research Objectives and Key Themes
The objective of this essay is to examine how different countries balance the conflicting interests of religious freedom and state neutrality within the public school system. By providing a comparative analysis of the U.S., Germany, and New Zealand, the work explores how constitutional courts and legal frameworks approach the presence of religious practices and symbols in schools while navigating the rights of students, parents, and the state.
- Comparison of constitutional interpretations regarding church-state separation in the U.S. and Germany.
- Evaluation of legal tests for determining "establishment" of religion, including the Lemon, Endorsement, and Coercion tests.
- Analysis of specific judicial rulings on school prayers and religious symbol displays, such as the Crucifix decision.
- Discussion on the role of coercion and the vulnerability of adolescents in state-supervised educational environments.
- Assessment of the impact of international legal standards, such as ECHR rulings, on domestic constitutional jurisprudence.
Excerpt from the Book
(d) Lee v Weisman – The Coercion Test
In line with a long lasting tradition Lee, the principal of a public school, invited a Rabbi to deliver a non-sectarian invocation and benediction at a graduation ceremony. The Rabbi was asked to comply with a set of guidelines developed by the National Conference of Christian and Jews that inter alia required prayers to be composed with “inclusiveness and sensitivity”. Claiming that the inclusion of such prayers into graduation ceremonies at public schools violates the Establishment Clause Weisman, the father of one of the graduates, sought for intermediate relief which was denied by the lower court for lack of time. Weisman and his daughter attended the non compulsory graduation ceremony, where the prayer was delivered, but yet continued litigation before the Supreme Court.
A five to four split Court denied the prayer’s constitutionality. In his judgment Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, neither applied the Lemon nor the Endorsement test, but developed a line of argumentation which should later be referred to as the “Coercion Test”. He held that the Establishment Clause at least prohibits to “coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise.” Although also relevant in other settings, he went on to say, “prayer exercises in public schools carry a particular risk of indirect coercion.” In the place at stake he detected two different coercive elements. Though attendance of such ceremonies was not compulsory in a formal sense, it was so in a “fair and real sense”, given that the “high school graduation is one of life's most significant occasions” and “absence would require forfeiture of those intangible benefits which have motivated the student through youth and all her high school years.” The de facto obligation to attend the ceremony was the first element of indirect pressure, which, taken by itself, did not violate the Constitution.
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter defines the historical tension between state and church and outlines the essay's goal to compare how the U.S., Germany, and New Zealand manage religious influence in public education.
II. Freedom of Religion in the United States: This section provides a detailed analysis of the Establishment Clause, exploring various Supreme Court tests and rulings regarding school prayers and the display of religious symbols.
III. Freedom of Religion in Germany: This chapter examines the German "limping separation" model, contrasting it with the U.S. approach while analyzing the Federal Constitutional Court's decisions on school prayers and the crucifix.
IV. Freedom of Religion in New Zealand: The final chapter reviews the legal landscape in New Zealand following the 1990 Bill of Rights Act, offering a prognosis on how the country might handle future religious litigation in schools.
Keywords
Freedom of Religion, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Public Schools, Church and State, Constitutional Law, Coercion Test, Lemon Test, School Prayer, Religious Symbols, Crucifix Decision, State Neutrality, Human Rights, Comparative Law, Basic Law
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this publication?
The work investigates the constitutional requirements placed on governments regarding the inclusion or exclusion of religion in public school settings, comparing the approaches taken by the U.S., Germany, and New Zealand.
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The essay focuses on constitutional jurisprudence, church-state relations, educational policy, the rights of religious minorities, and the legal definition of state neutrality.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine how different democratic nations balance the protection of religious freedom with the state’s obligation to maintain neutrality in an environment where participation is compulsory for youth.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author utilizes a comparative legal methodology, analyzing case law, constitutional provisions, and academic literature from three distinct legal systems to identify similarities and differences in their judicial reasoning.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body covers the interpretation of the U.S. First Amendment, the German Basic Law's cooperative model, and the developing jurisprudence in New Zealand, focusing on specific court cases involving prayers and religious artifacts.
Which key terms define this work?
Central terms include the Establishment Clause, state neutrality, negative freedom of religion, the coercion test, and the constitutional distinction between sectarian and non-sectarian public activities.
How does the "Coercion Test" differ from other constitutional tests in the U.S.?
Unlike the Lemon test, which focuses on legislative purpose and entanglement, the Coercion Test emphasizes the indirect psychological and social pressure exerted on students in an official school setting to participate in religious exercises.
Why is the "Crucifix Decision" considered significant for Germany?
The Crucifix decision is highly significant because it forced the German Federal Constitutional Court to reconcile the country’s cooperative church-state model with the fundamental rights of dissenters in public schools, leading to intense academic and public debate.
- Quote paper
- LL.M. Sebastian Röder (Author), 2010, Do Constitutions Require Governments to Refrain from Religion in Public Schools? A Comparison Between the U.S., Germany and New Zealand, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/282301
