A certain high school offers a scholarship every year for forensics - public speaking - event winners. Among the events at this high school every year is an oratory in which famous documents are read out loud. The winner of this event receives a small college scholarship.
This year, the school announces that the document that will serve as the source of the oratory is the Declaration of Independence.
One student objects to this, noting that the Declaration blatantly says that people “…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” The student asserts that this endorsement by a public school – rewarding with scholarship money the student who most convincingly can orate the idea that we are all endowed by a Creator – amounts to an impermissible establishment of religion.
My first thought is that although the contest is asking folks to be convincing that what their document is saying is true, it’s no more an endorsement than when a student is assigned a debate topic in debate class. Just because the student is “forced” to argue that abortion is murder, that does not mean the school is endorsing that view (and in fact likely assigned the opposite argument to another student).
It sounds to me like the situation in the OP is analagous to the debate class, and I would rule that it’s OK.
Well, since no precise religion is specified, I fail to see the endorsement of a religion by a governmental body. “Creator” can be construed to mean anything from space aliens to a toaster to God almighty, so it’s perfectly fine by me.
Plus, it’s not a mandatory class or exercise, it’s completely voluntary, so if said student finds the scholarship at odds with his/her ideals, he/she is free to walk away from the proceedings.
I agree with Revtim. If a debating society hosts a debate entitled “This house believes that the word of the Gospel is true,” it does not necessarily mean that the debating society believes in the Gospel, rather that they are setting the subject in dispute.
'Course, mix in the ACLU, the current admin, fundamentalist preachers, dedicated SoCaSists, “angry parents,” and various talking heads, and in vitro it could be anybody’s ballgame.
Like any other case involving a potential SOCAS issue - applying the Lemon test (from Lemon v. Kurtzman) to it, consisting of three separate components:
Does the issue at question have a secular purpose?
Does the issue have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion?
Does the issue foster an excessive government entanglement with religion?
This oratory contest certainly has a secular purpose - the furtherment of forensics abilities, and the granting of better access to higher education (via the scholarship).
The second component of the Lemon Test is also true, as the forensics contest has a history of selecting documents for their historic merit, not their religious merit. Additionally, the primary effect is the scholarship, not the secondary endorsement of the mention of the Creator.
The third issue is where the primary concern would be - but I don’t see any excessive entanglement. Certainly, “excessive entanglement” is a vastly subjective term, but it would be the burden of the accusor to point out any aid to religion that this contest creates.
Rule for the school. The Declaration is a historical document, fundamental to the founding of this country. While it contains a religious statement, that statement is incidental to it, as well as being general. There’s caselaw (that I don’t feel like finding right now, but will upon request) supporting that the mere reference to a “creator” or a “god” does not neccesarily violate the first amendment.
Also, the school isn’t testing the strength of their conviction, but the skill of their oratory. Someone non-religious can still win the scholarship. In other words, they’ve got to say it, but they don’t have to believe it.
Ah, but one could the say the same about pledge, which I personally find to be an improper endorsement that should ended (or at least have ‘under God’ removed). The difference I see is that the only purpose of the pledge is to, well, pledge. Ineffective it may be, it’s an attempt of the state to make people believe in a certain way, and is a clear endorsement of a point of view. The example in the OP and my debate example are learning exercises which I feel do not endorse the point of view of the material.
Yes, you could. As I don’t find the pledge to be an improper endorsement, it doesn’t bother me, but since you do, the distinction you make still works.
First, competition for the scholarship is voluntary, even if slightly coerced. Second, while I despise “ceremonial deism,” what the “endowed by their Creator” passage is talking about is the “natural law” theory of rights jurisprudence, not the establishment of a national belief in, say, the SBC conception of God.
But most importantly, it would be quite easy to write a prize-winning speech on the Declaration without ever making reference to the “acknowledgement of God” passage(s).
Finally, what Revtim said – there is a big difference between an assignment to work from a given premise and the command/coercion of active belief in that premise. A student might be expected to know that the revelations Mohammed apparently received, and their content, had quite a bit to do with why Arabs suddenly spread throughout the Middle East in conquering mode between 650 and 850 AD, without being expected to subscribe to the principles of Islam. Likewise, the modus vivendi between Deism, freethinking, and various forms of Christian belief that characterized the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason is a fundamental underlying principle behind the Declaration and the First Amendment. And expecting a student to grasp that idea is not mandating a religious belief on him; it’s expecting him to know what motivated historical figures, a quite different thing.
Right, but to win the scholarship in the OP, you don’t have to make a speech on the Declaration, you have to read the Declaration out loud, so the people in the contest are going to have to say the “Creator” part.
And, thinking some more about it, what if the document the students had to read wasn’t the Declaration, but some specifically religious work, like the Song of Solomon from the Bible or one of the surahs from the Koran? Would that be ok?
What if it was from some religious work from a dead religion, like the Illiad? Would that be ok?
I wouldn’t have a legal problem with dead or current religious documents in the context of the public speaking exercise.
But, if I were in charge of the event, I’d avoid religious documents and topics to bypass any controversy, though. Just because I think it’s OK doesn’t mean I’d be able to convince everybody else it’s OK.
Yup. Even though this isn’t likely the way the Framers meant the word, to say that we are all endowed with rights by our “Creator” could as easily refer to the physical world that gave rise to us all (for the mechanistic Atheist). Since we were all obviously created by something, even if it was the natural processes of evolution, I have no problem with references to a Creator.
Sorry, this experiment doesn’t work. To object to the cited passage in such a context would be like excising lines about god in a school performance of Shakespeare.
The Lemon test provides a good starting point for determining if the *intent * of the speech is religious.
I would distinguish reading the Pledge of Allegiance from reading the Declaration of Independence. By saying “I pledge allegance to the United States …” you are not making a statement of fact, you are performing an act by making the statement. There are many cases where a speaker performs an act in speaking, e.g. “I declare you man and wife”, “I promise to pay you ten dollars”, “I choose the red one.” With the Pledge, you are not just stating something, you are pledging allegiance.
In the case of the Declaration of Independence, the original authors of the Declaration were performing an act by writing and signing the document. However, later reciters of the document are not performing that act – just as if I (a non-citizen of the US) were performing in a play a part of a US citizen, and recited the Pedge of Allegiance. My character wouod be performing an act by so speaking, but I personally would not. (I have attended functions where the Pedge has been recited, and in those circumstances I stand, but I do not put my hand over my heart or recite the pledge, sinmce that would not be consistent with my being a non-citizen).
A student required to speak the Pledge of Allegiance is required to do more than recite some words: he or she is being required to pledge allegiance. On the other hand, a student required to speak the Declaration of Independence is not required to do anything more than speak some words. The original authors of the Declaration, by writing and signing it as subjects of King George, were putting their necks at risk through a charge of treason. A UK-citizen exchange student at an American high school reciting the Declaration of Independence would not be at risk of a charge of treason under UK law.