Koenick v. Felton (1999)
Government Observance of Religious Holidays: Good Friday as a State Holiday
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Can the government take a religious holiday and make an official state holiday out of it? Is it an establishment of religion when a religious holy day becomes an official state holiday? Good Friday is a Christian Holy Day which many Christians would surely like to have off, but does that mean that governments should grant it official recognition over and above the holy days of other religions?
Background Information
Judith M. Koenick, a former public school teacher, filed suit against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, Maryland, challenging the constitutionality of a Maryland statute providing for public school holidays on the Friday before Easter through the Monday following. According to Koenick, this statute's enforcement amounted to an establishment of religion because it singled out a Christian holy day for special treatment in a manner not accorded to the holy days of other religions.
A district court rejected Koenick's arguments and ruled in favor of the Board of Education, finding that the Good Friday school holidays did not constitute an establishment of religion. Koenick appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Court Decision
In a majority opinion written by Judge Ervin and joined by Judge Motz and Senior Circuit Judge Butzner, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the judgment of the district court and affirmed it's decision, ruling that there was no impermissible establishment of religion in creating a public holiday at the same time as the Christian holy day of Good Friday.
The most important part of the Court's reasoning was the Board's argument that these schools closings served the secular purpose of saving money and maintaining the school's effectiveness in the face of a high rate of absenteeism on those days - the same reasons that the Board closed schools for the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.
Koenick argued that while such a state of affairs may be possible, there was no actual evidence that it was true and the Board never attempted to find out if it were true. The Court rejected this argument, but for some reason did not do so by appealing to any relevant evidence. Instead, the Court argued that these days off had been part of the school calendar for 130 years and, hence, had become a part of the community's "expectations and plans." This was asserted, not supported, which was exactly what Koenick argued was a problem. It may be true, but it might not be.
The Court also found that the law establishing a school holiday on Good Friday did not violate the other two prongs of the Lemon Test. First, it was concluded that this holiday did not endorse Christianity over other faiths because the holiday was open to everyone, not just Christians, and because students who need to be absent for other religious holidays receive excused absences for those days.
Second, establishing Good Friday as a school holiday does not result in any "excessive entanglement" between government and religion. Koenick argued that it did because it involved in Board in an inter-religious dispute between Western and Eastern Christians over when the actual date of Easter really is and that constitutes "excessive entanglement." However, the Court reasoned that because the Board consults a commercially printed calendar rather than a religious authority over when to set the Easter holiday, that makes their decision acceptable.
Significance
This decision, like others on the same subject, emphasized most of all the need for a secular purpose in order for the government to officially acknowledge a religious holy day as a public or school holiday. In this case, it could not be ruled that Good Friday had become secularized, but it was found that there existed a secular purpose in closing schools when so many people would be absent anyway. Although that may indeed be a valid secular purpose, it is disappointing that the only evidence for it was the judge's assumption that the existence of those holidays had become a part of the community's expectations.
The arguments that the other two prongs of the Lemon Test were satisfied are even weaker still. The fact that adherents of other faiths can personally request their holy days off, only to have to make up the missed work later, fails to demonstrate that giving everyone a Christian holy day off does not advance religion. Moreover, the fact that the holiday is given to everyone rather than just Christians doesn't do any better - if every Christian holy day were to become a holiday for all citizens, would that really fail to be an advancement of Christianity over other religions?
Finally, it simply makes no sense to argue that obtaining the date for Easter and Good Friday from a secular source means that there is no entanglement in the dispute between Western and Eastern Christians over the dating of Eastern. The secular calendar's source is, ultimately, religious authorities. If the calendar contains both Eastern and Western datings, the Board is choosing the Western dates at the expense of the Eastern dates, communicating that the Western dates are preferable. If the calendar only offers the Western dates, then the Board is knowingly using an incomplete and biased source, something which cannot excuse them from the consequences of their decisions - namely, to tell the community that the Western Christians dates for Good Friday and Easter are the preferable dates.
Further Information
Good Friday & Easter
Good Friday is a Christian Holy Day which many Christians would surely like to have off
from work or school, but does that mean that governments should grant it official
recognition over and above the holy days of other religions?
Back To: Court Decisions on Religious Liberty (main page)
-->