The Supreme Court defines religious belief as “whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God.” This definition comes from the case United States v. Seeger (1965) and includes many non-theistic religions such as Buddhism and Taoism.
However, in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that the Seeger definition would only apply to certain statutory laws, such as draft exemptions, but wouldn’t always be used in First Amendment disputes.
The orthodox, and earliest Supreme Court definition of religious belief, referred to in the Seeger case comes from Davis v Beason (1890). The Davis definition of religious belief is “a person's view about his relationship, obligations, and reverence for a Creator.” The Supreme Court has changed its stance on what constitutes a religion over the centuries. The Seeger case, with the Yoder exemption, is the current definition.
The right to free exercise of religion is a fundamental right guaranteed by the First Amendment. You have the right to believe in any religion or no religion at all. The government cannot compel a person to follow a religion or punish someone who does.
Not respecting the establishment of a religion does not mean that religion and government may not come in contact at all. Rather, the Constitution forbids the government from favoring any religion over another. When the government interacts with religion, it must do so neutrally and have a secular purpose.
Avoiding establishment is often referred to as “separation between church and state.” Although “separation” has been enforced as a legal doctrine, it must be noted that separation does not come from the Constitution. Separation comes from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Danbury bishops, reassuring them that their right to free exercise would not be endangered by a new administration. Although barring establishment of religion often constitutes separation, the line between the establishment clause and separation is very thin.
The Supreme Court has established a test for when church and state may interact. The Lemon Test, named after the case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), states that church and state may interact when:
Because children are impressionable, courts are reluctant to allow the display of religious messages in schools because they would transmit basic and fundamental values to children linking school and religion. Some examples of prohibited activities include:
Despite the courts hesitation about allowing religious practices in school, some religious activity is allowed, including:
If you believe that your child's religious rights are being violated, you should file a complaint with the school district. Each school district has a different way of handling complaints. If you are still unsatisfied after the school district processes your complaint, you may choose to sue the school and the school district.
A lawyer can help you understand you and your child's Constitutional rights as they apply to religion in public schools. A lawyer can also help you file a lawsuit against the school and school district if you are unsatisfied with the district's response to your complaint.
Last Modified: 03-29-2012 02:08 PM PDTLaw Library Disclaimer
We've helped more than 4 million clients find the right lawyer – for free. Present your case online in minutes. LegalMatch matches you to pre-screened lawyers in your city or county based on the specifics of your case. Within 24 hours experienced local lawyers review it and evaluate if you have a solid case. If so, attorneys respond with an offer to represent you that includes a full attorney profile with details on their fee structure, background, and ratings by other LegalMatch users so you can decide if they're the right lawyer for you.