Both religion and politics represent crucial ideologies close to people’s hearts. Due to their nature, both topics unify and polarize people. Nonetheless, intolerance to another person’s faith or belief is a personal decision and not a requirement by law. Furthermore, people are often warned about mixing politics with religion. Indeed, the two should not mix because political aspirations often empty religion its spiritual essence. Another reason why it is crucial to keep religion away from politics is to avoid personal faith or belief from interfering with other operations especially when used as a method of confronting opposing views. Concerning higher education, separation of church and state implies that the government should remain neutral towards all religions. Therefore, the separation of church and state, as well as the application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, promote civil liberties in higher education.
Limitations of Religion in Government Funded Organizations
The first limitation in the exercise of religion in institutions that accept government funds is the exclusion of persons who are affiliated with other religions from benefiting from the government funds. This limitation has to do with the principle of equality (Nieuwenhuis, 2012). Funding particular religions while failing to provide financial assistance to some devout groups may portray favoritism and discrimination. It is crucial for institutions accepting government funding to accommodate all citizens; otherwise, the government should provide equal funding and opportunities to numerous institutions affiliated with the existing religions. Another disadvantage in the exercise of religion in institutions that accept government funds is a compromise of a religious character, ideas, and ideals by the state. Like many other aspects of human life, religion can be easily compromised by tyrannical officials funding them. In such cases, church leaders conform to government demands that may contradict the religion’s ideals. Exercise of religion in institutions that accept government funds may also affect the performance of the faith-based organizations by promoting laissez-faire among the officials.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The First Amendment Free Exercise Clause
The First Amendment Free Exercise Clause prohibits the state from restraining citizens from exercising their freedom of religion (Mayrl & Oeur, 2019). The purpose of the clause is to ensure the liberty of faith without intervention by the state. Concerning higher education institutions, the clause secures religious liberty for the students on the campus. Religious freedom is regarded as one of the most essential liberties. Religious freedom is cherished because it is associated with the individual conscience. The Free Exercise Clause covers all personal beliefs of students in higher education, even those that are not based on religion. For instance, non-believers of religion are protected against infringement of their convictions. Application of the clause mandates higher learning institutions to provide equal access to school facilities to religious organizations within the student community. Education institutions are not expected to provide funding for one group and deny another because the institution disagrees with the latter’s religious stands. As such, higher learning institutions should not punish students for expressing their beliefs through speech, protests, or any other accepted means.
The First Amendment Establishment Clause
As its name suggests, the First Amendment Establishment Clause forbids the state from showing a preference for a particular religion or forcing a belief on the citizens (Epley, 2017). The purpose of this clause is to discourage the establishment of a state religion; it allows individuals to freely chose and practice their preferred convictions. The clause also forbids the state from endorsing all religions to discriminate against non-believers. The application of the clause in higher learning institutions forbid schools from religious indoctrination; students with contradicting beliefs with those being pushed in voluntary religious gatherings are allowed to excuse themselves without receiving punishment from the school. The clause requires that schools should not prohibit compulsory conduction of religious activities such as observation of moments of silence for prayers, posting of teachings of particular faiths in classrooms, or be partial in any religious matters. The First Amendment Establishment Clause also applies to graduation prayers; the prayers should not show preference of a particular religion or force a belief to the graduates. It is crucial to observe the mandates in the Establishment Clause because approving a particular belief harms the liberty of individuals to practice their beliefs.
Reconciling the Two Clauses
The two clauses differ in that the Free Exercise Clause forbids the governments from restraining citizens from exercising their freedom of religion while the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from showing a preference of a particular religion or forcing a belief on individuals. In general, both clauses forbid the government from interfering with the religious liberties of the citizens; however, the Free Exercise clause mandates the government to accommodate all religions while beliefs while the other ensures that the state remains neutral. Despite using different approaches, both clauses promote religious liberty. While one clause operates by including all religions and convictions, the other works by excluding coercion by the government. The two causes complement each other to develop the much-needed balance in the church-state relationship (Conklin & Vache, 2015). The dynamic operations of the two clauses help achieve the purposes of the First Amendment which are prohibiting the establishment of state religions, promoting inclusion of all convictions, and allowing people to peacefully assemble, protest, and express their beliefs.
Private and Public Institutions
To answer the question, “when does a private institution become public?”, it is crucial to define and analyze the features of both. Public institutions otherwise referred to as state institutions, are sponsored by the taxpayers through the state government (Richards, 2000). Examples of state institutions are public universities that are found in every state. On the other hand, private institutions are not financed, neither are they operated by the government. Private universities are funded by donations from independent stakeholders. The First Amendment applies differently to the two entities. The law requires public institutions to uphold the rights of the students; the clauses of the First Amendment are applied in all public universities without compromise (Richards, 2000). Private institutions have no direct commitment to apply the clauses of the First Amendment. Individually-owned institutions envision themselves as examples of freedom and expression. Such institutions function by living up to the high standards that they set, and also by keeping the promises they make concerning students’ liberties. Therefore, when a private institution hands over its governance to the state government, switches its funding from private donors to the public and becomes bound by the First Amendment, the private institution has become public.
The Fourteenth Amendment in Private Institutions
The Fourteenth Amendment, otherwise referred to as the Reconstruction Amendment, forbids the government from denying individuals “life, liberty, or property” without following the stipulated procedure of law (due process) as well as refuse equal protection to a particular citizen (Perry, 2010). Due process plays a significant role in the disciplinary procedures in education institutions. While the due process applies to students in public institutions without compromise, disciplinary activities in private institutions are governed by contract law (Perry, 2010). However, for the Fourteenth Amended to apply in private schools, the accusers must prove that the defendants in the private institution “deprived them a federally created right and also establish that the disciplinarians acted under color of state law” (Perry, 2010). This implies that the defendant used government laws to deny the accuser rights protected by the constitution. In such cases, the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable in private institutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the separation of church and state, as well as the application of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, promote civil liberties in higher education. The research reveals some limitations of exercising religion in institutions that accept government funds; these include exclusion of persons who are affiliated with other religions and compromise of a religious character, ideas, and ideals by state. However, the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the first Amendment successfully create a balance between religion and state. The research also reveals that the First and Fourteen Amendments are applied in public but not private institutions. For private organizations to become public, a private institution should hand over its governance to the state government, switch its funding from private donors to the public, and become bound by the First Amendment. Lastly, the study reveals that the accusers must prove that the defendants in the private institution deprived them of a federally created right and also establish that the disciplinarians acted under the color of state law.
References
Conklin, F., & Vache, J. (2015). The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Washington Constitution-A Proposal to the Supreme Court [EBook] (1st Ed.). https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1198&context=sulr
Epley, B. (2017). The Establishment Clause and Public Schools in the 21st Century. NASSP Bulletin , 91 (3), 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636507305310
Mayrl, D., & Oeur, F. (2019). Religion and Higher Education: Current Knowledge and Directions for Future Research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 48 (2), 260-275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2009.01446.x
Nieuwenhuis, A. (2012). State and religion, a multidimensional relationship: Some comparative law remarks. International Journal of Constitutional Law , 10 (1), 153-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mos001
Perry, M. (2010). The Fourteenth Amendment: What Norms Did 'We the People' Establish?. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1687063
Richards, D. (2000). Public and Private in the Discourse of the First Amendment. Cardozo Studies In Law And Literature , 12 (1), 61-101. https://doi.org/10.1525/lal.2000.12.1.02a00040
