Skip to content
Gallery
Eleutheria
Eleutheria - The Liberty Project
More
Share
Explore








⁠

Sign the Petition

⁠
Eaton Community School Board Must Uphold the 1st Amendment - Online petition
In recent months, the Eaton Community School District (ECSD) has found itself at the center of a significant controversy involving the infringement of First Amendment rights, particularly those pertaining to religious freedom under both the establishment and free exercise clauses. The actions taken by the school district have not only caused emotional distress but have also infringed upon the fundamental rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. This situation has p
www.openpetition.org
⁠
⁠

Together, we can make a difference.




1st Amendment Overview

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution enumerated in the Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American democracy, protecting several fundamental freedoms, including the rights to free speech, assembly, press, petition, and religion.

The Text of the 1st Amendment

"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."
For our purposes, we focus on two crucial aspects related to religious freedom:
The Establishment Clause
The Free Exercise Clause

The Establishment Clause

Definition and Purpose

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that the government cannot favor one religion over another or support religion over non-religion (or vice versa). The purpose of this clause is to ensure the separation of church and state, preventing the government from endorsing or funding religious activities or institutions.

Key Legal Precedents

Everson v. Board of Education (1947):
The Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law allowing public funds to be used for transportation to religious schools, emphasizing that the government cannot support religious activities directly.
Engel v. Vitale (1962):
The Supreme Court ruled that government-directed prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971):
Established the Lemon Test to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. The test has three prongs:
The law must have a secular purpose.
The primary effect of the law must neither advance nor inhibit religion.
The law must not result in an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Application to the Second Step Program

The Second Step program, promoted by ECS as a Social Emotional Learning curriculum, incorporates foundational principles rooted in Buddhism. This raises significant concerns regarding the application of the Establishment Clause.
Secular Purpose:
While the Second Step program is presented as a secular initiative aimed at improving students' social and emotional well-being, its foundation in mindfulness practices, which are closely associated with Buddhist religious principles, complicates this claim. The inclusion of these practices could be perceived as promoting a particular religious worldview.
Primary Effect:
The primary effect of the Second Step program may advance Buddhist principles under the guise of secular education. By incorporating mindfulness and meditation techniques, which are integral to Buddhist practice, the program could be seen as endorsing and promoting these religious concepts, thus potentially violating the Establishment Clause.
Excessive Entanglement:
The implementation of the Second Step program in public schools might lead to excessive government entanglement with religion. This entanglement occurs when the government becomes involved in religious activities, such as monitoring or modifying the program to ensure it remains secular, which can further blur the lines between church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause

Definition and Purpose

The Free Exercise Clause protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely without government interference. This clause ensures that people can follow their religious beliefs and practices without fear of government restriction or discrimination.

Key Legal Precedents

Reynolds v. United States (1879):
The Supreme Court held that religious practices could be restricted if they violate public morals or laws.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963):
Established the Sherbert Test, which requires the government to show a compelling interest before restricting religious practices.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):
The Supreme Court ruled that compulsory school attendance laws could not force Amish children to attend public school beyond the eighth grade, recognizing the parents' rights to free exercise of religion.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990):
The Court ruled that generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious practices do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Application to the LifeWise Academy Issue

The Free Exercise Clause is central to our argument for allowing the LifeWise Academy to operate during school hours. Several legal precedents support the protection of religious practices and parental rights in education:
Zorach v. Clauson (1952):
The Supreme Court upheld a New York program allowing students to leave school during school hours for religious instruction. The Court recognized that accommodating religion does not equate to establishing it. This case directly supports the argument for LifeWise Academy, as it allows students to participate in religious education during school hours without violating the Establishment Clause.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972):
This case recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children. The Court held that compulsory education laws could not force Amish children to attend public school beyond eighth grade, highlighting the importance of protecting religious practices in educational settings. Applying this to the LifeWise Academy, ECS should respect the rights of parents who choose religious education for their children.
Sherbert v. Verner (1963):
The Sherbert Test requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious practices. ECS’s prohibition of LifeWise Academy imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion without a compelling justification, failing this test.

Balancing the Clauses

The Supreme Court has often had to balance the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. While the government must avoid endorsing or funding religious activities, it must also protect individuals' rights to practice their religion freely.

The Zorach v. Clauson Case (1952)

A landmark case that supports our stance is Zorach v. Clauson, where the Supreme Court upheld a New York program allowing students to leave school during school hours for religious instruction. The Court recognized that accommodating religion does not equate to establishing it.

How You Can Help

Educate Yourself and Others:
Familiarize yourself with these constitutional principles and share this knowledge with your community.
Get Involved:
Join our advocacy efforts by attending public meetings, signing petitions, and participating in our campaigns.

For more information, resources, and ways to get involved, explore the rest of our research and stay connected with Eleutheria - The Liberty Project.


Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.