Freedom of Religion Scenarios

“Your first case involved the eccentric Veronica, who did not practice traditional religion, but rather worshipped with poisonous snakes. Veronica argued her 1st Amendment rights to worship with poisonous snakes should be protected just like the 1st Amendment guarantees protection for other religions & the right for people to own guns. Her argument was the state should have never violated her religious practices. As judge or citizen, I can honestly say I have never heard of such faith & snakes scare the absolute hell out of me. There ain’t gonna be no snake worshipping in my town – judgment DENIED!”

1. Veronica’s beliefs may seem unusual but it still counts as a religion regardless whether you have heard of it or not. The establishment clause states that all religion must be read the same. The judge’s ruling is incorrect, especially because he/she is afraid of snakes and has never heard of these practices before. However, judge’s ruling would make more sense of he/she focused on dangers of poisonous snakes, since they have the ability to kill. If there is a possibility of snakes causing harm, then it would be rational to curtail that religion. For instance, religious extremists are not allowed to act on terrorism/violence, despite what their religion may preach... you cannot stone a woman to death simply because she cheated on you. In other words, there is a difference between practicing your religion and causing damage by your religion. You can control a gun, but not a venomous snake.

“The next case involved an elected official scheduled to be sworn into office in January. Stefan practiced unique religious beliefs & did not want to accept the oath of office with a Bible. To concerned citizens Daniel & Hao, this demonstrated Stefan was not Christian, so they sued to have the election overturned. Their point was the community should not be represented by a non-Christian. Stefan, who was overwhelmingly elected, stated the Constitution forbid any religious test for elected office in the 1st Amendment. “No means no,” so I immediately upheld Stefan’s election.”

2. It is important to acknowledge the separation of church and state as it was articulated through the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. There should be no rule that prohibits the free exercise of religion. He should not have been sued merely because some citizens disagree with his religion. The judge is right to uphold Stefan’s election.

“All this seemed simple enough until the damn poisonous snake from the last case got loose & bit Stefan. This only excited Veronica that this was proof Stefan should not hold elected office since the poisonous snake chose him to bite. Because of the danger of the situation, a number of the attorneys & citizens in the courtroom simultaneously engaged in the prayer of their choosing for the safety of Stefan. Before anyone else was bitten, Paul the bailiff killed it with several well-placed shots from his firearm. Of course, this meant Veronica thought government was persecuting her snake by assassinating it with a firearm & promised a future lawsuit since government had literally destroyed her religious beliefs in front of hundreds of witnesses. I wished Veronica luck in her next lawsuit & had her, the dead poisonous snake, & the simultaneous people praying (regardless of their faith) removed from my courtroom.”

3. Like I stated before, a religion should be curtailed if it causes harm towards others. Therefore, the snake should’ve died and Veronica to be arrested for promoting such reckless performance. The fact that Veronica got excited over someone’s injury shows that she does not care about public safety, so her warped beliefs should be condemned before she allows more people to be hurt.

4. However, people who prayed should have not been removed from the courtroom since it was their consent to express their practices. There were no signs of disputes from the prayers. The judge’s action was incorrect because their rights should’ve been protected in this scenario.

“Once all the ruckus died down, the next few cases involved the schools. Suruchi, the Catholic School teacher who became a local elementary school principal, wanted to begin the school day with a silent prayer. As long as kids are not forced to openly pray for a specific religion or even to pray at all, this might help reinforce the school’s ability to raise moral young people who avoid illegal drugs, abstain from out-of-wedlock sex, & dissect poisonous snakes rather than pray to them. Besides her argument continued, the Democrats overwhelmingly support silent school prayer – how could the majority party of the United States be wrong? Thinking back to my school days, I always said grace & absolutely prayed when I had not studied enough for an exam. If it was good enough for me, it is good enough for today’s youth. I UPHELD the school’s silent prayer policy. “

5. This scenario is a little bit complicated. Establishing a silent prayer that does not force any student to be involved might seem harmless and the principal has the right to express her religion freely, the local elementary school is not catholic and although it is “silent”, she is still enforcing her religion in non-religious classrooms. The principal is supposed to be a role model to her students, but if she expresses her religion around students, it could be a violation of establishment clause. Some of the students might feel uncomfortable in that kind of environment and they should be respected. Public schools are funded by state and if the judge upholds the policy, it would contradict the idea of separation of church and state. As a judge, I would not allow it. Either the principal could do it in private or go back teaching in a catholic school since she wants to pray so much.

“The next case involved school cheerleaders selling burritos at the high school football games. These were some tasty burritos, but they were wrapped in shiny foil wrappers with Biblical scriptures written on them. Emmanual, one of the cheerleaders, said their scripture wrappers deserved 1st Amendment protection because they were expressing their religious beliefs. One player last week claimed he dropped a pass in the 3rd quarter because of the way the lights reflected off these foil wrappers when they all blew on the field after half time. Another player, Curtis, said he accidentally stained his uniform when he knelt on it with players from both teams while praying once the game was concluded. In my mind, football & religion are the same thing. Since these wrappers disrupted the game & polluted the environment, I BANNED them.”

6. I would love to try these burritos, but as a judge I would not approve of the biblical scriptures. Assuming that those high school football games are at public schools, there should be separation of church and state. It would not make sense if I previously disapproved the Catholic principal but allow the students to enforce their religion. There are students who come from different backgrounds and religions so it would not be fair if one religion were enforced in the football games. People have the freedom to believe in whatever they want, but enforcing those beliefs on food in a non-religious zone when people just want to eat is not fair.

7. If the wrappers are banned due to environmental concerns, then the religious aspect of it does not really matter. Nevertheless, if I were to ban the wrappers because of the scriptures then the prayers should be eliminated as well.

“The next case involved the Amish removing their children from school before they were 16 years old. They believed the public schools would negatively impact their religious beliefs & spiritual lives. Anita, a person with control issues from the teacher’s union, argued this was not attacking religion, but was ensuring we had intelligent/educated young people growing up in our community. Besides, how could we protect their 1st Amendment right to drive a car if they did not even complete driver’s education if they quit before being 16? One of the Amish children touchingly asked not to be punished by reading from the 10 Commandments posted over my bench about honoring mother & father. In my mind, the only thing worse than idle youth, is uneducated youth. The Amish will continue their schooling until graduation like everybody else & their parents will honor state law about education requirements. Judgment DENIED.”

8. Although the judge may disagree with the Amish’ beliefs, the judge still has no right to control other people’s lives. We may want intelligent/educated young people in our community, but who said Amish people cannot be intelligent? They could learn a lot of things through their experiences that are different from ours. It is a violation of the first amendment to forbid them from doing what they want to do. In addition, not everyone can drive a car anyway, so it is unfair to pin it on Amish people for not being able to drive as an example of missing education. We live in a society where free exercise should be allowed. Every religion group should be treated equally.

“After lunch, the local public college case came before the court. Evidently a religious student group wanted to use college funds to pay for a religious student club activity. Although it did not involve poisonous snakes, this was not a Christian faith & it did involve the use of marijuana. The college refused to provide funding because government is not supposed to support religious activities. Chrissy & the mysterious tall guy she was walking with argued they paid student fees & deserved some of this support for the club’s activities. As judge, my ruling is the students should not receive funding for their religious activities because marijuana was involved & because it is illegal. Even if this activity involved legal substances, colleges should never provide public money to campus religious organizations.”

9. Why did it emphasize the fact that it was not a Christian faith? It is as if the judge is implying that religion is better than others. No religion should get a special privilege. The students has the right to express their practices in a closed religious zone, which is what a club is designed for. The college should allow the funding but only if it is from the students’ fees. It is true that government should not support religious activities due to separation of church and state, but if the students formed a religious area where they can express their religion in private without violating anyone’s rights then there shouldn’t be a problem. The judge is right to override the club because of marijuana, but if there were no illegal substances involved, the club still should’ve been formed.

“Mercifully, this very complicated day ended. With all the different religions & the confusing 1st Amendment, sometimes I just wish the U.S. established one national religion so we could all believe the same way. I would be willing to enforce this going forward into 2014 & even imposing this law backwards into 2013 just to make things simpler. While this sounds good, I better just stick to the Constitution the way it is written. All this confusion is good job security for a judge... “

10. The government cannot have a national religion, anyway. It goes against the whole point of the amendment.