William Rehnquist spent the last thirty-three years of his life on the Supreme Court. Nineteen of these spent as Chief Justice. Throughout his career he decided on such remarkable cases related to freedom from religion as Stone v. Graham, prohibiting posting of the Ten Commandments in schools and, Edwards v. Aquillard, finding it unconstitutional for states to require teaching of Creation in every instance where Darwinian Evolution is taught. A total of six similar cases were decided on with his vote which can be found at the end of this blog. Throughout all six cases he voted in favor of religious privilege.

Rehnquist was one of two Supreme Court Justices who voted for allowing The 10 Commandments to be posted in schools. How can this be misinterpreted as constitutional? This blatantly fails to follow both the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause. Did Rehnquist hold his ears and ignore evidence against his opinion? Not quite, however, in his dissent he quoted ruling on Lemon v. Kurtzman stating “the statutes themselves clearly state they are intended to enhance the quality of the secular education.” Did anyone point out to him how ridiculous this correlation is? Any religious privilege could be viewed as constitutional in this light. One may argue that the intent of forced prayer in school is to comfort the religious, yet educate the nonbelievers in our rituals. He goes further referencing Florey v. Sioux Falls School District, “upholding rules permitting public school Christmas observances with religious elements as promoting the articulated secular purpose of “advanc[ing] the student’s knowledge and appreciation of the role that our religious heritage has played in the social, cultural and historical development of civilization.”” It’s easy to see his evangelical bias. How would American parents feel about student followers of Islam encouraging female peers to wear Hijabs (Islamic head covering) during a school sponsored event addressing the historical relevance of Sharia Law? History alone should be evidence of Rehnquist’s incompetence towards decisions on religion.

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)

References from http://www.oyez.org/and http://www.infidels.org/