In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools. The Dover Area School District of Dover, Pennsylvania is seeking approval from the General Assembly of Pennsylvania House to include the theory of intelligent design in the instruction of biology. Intelligent design, also known as I.D., is a theory that seeks to refute the widely-accepted and scientifically-supported evolution theory. It proposes that the complexity of living things and all of their functioning parts hints at the role of an unspecified source of intelligence in their creation (Orr). For all intents and purposes, the evidence cited by I.D. supporters consists only of the holes or missing links in evolutionary theory; it is a widely-debate proposal, not because ?of the significant weight of its evidence,? but because ?of the implications of its evidence? (IDnet). House Bill No. 1007?the bill in question?propos... ... middle of paper ... ...20Biology%20Curriculum--011005.pdf ?Dover Area School District Biology I Planned Instruction/ Curriculum Guide.? Dover Area School District. http://www.dover.k12.pa.us/3598_7352811954/lib/3598_7352811954/Biology%20Curriculum.pdf ?Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578.? Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. 1987. http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/lloyd/projects/conlaw/ed_v_ag.htm ?House Bill No.1007.? The General Assembly of Pennsylvania. 2005. http://www2.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2005/0/HB1007P1153.pdf ?Lemon v. Kurtzmann 403 U.S. 602.? FindLaw for Legal Professionals. 1971. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602 ?Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664.? FindLaw for Legal Professionals. 1970. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=397&invol=664
"Walz v. Tax Comm'n of the City of New York." LII / Legal Information Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 May 2014.
al., Appellants v. City of New York et al. Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. 1998. Web. 6 May 2014.
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
In Inherit the Wind, a 1960s film adaptation directed by Stanley Kramer, the battle between religion and science was tested, portrayed through the Scopes Trial of 1925. In the trail, John Scopes, a high school science teacher, was accused and convicted of teaching Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, curriculum that was forbidden by Tennessee state law. It is clear that a focal point of the film was the discussion of whether religion should be the driving force behind education, or if science and empirical study is a better alternative. This discussion is alive and well in 2017, crucial in a time where Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is a known believer in theories of ‘intelligent design,’ a theory that suggests divine guidance in the
A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
Public schools might have the constitutional authority to insist on curricular uniformity over parents’ religious objections and they should, no matter the legal situations currently involved. Not only should the option of parental deference not be respected or accommodated, it shouldn’t be allowed at all. I believe that Guttman’s case against paternal deference was stronger than Burtt’s case for. Education in evolution, role elimination, planetary systems are fundamental skills that are essential for the children’s life and society as a whole. Even if parents don’t wish to have their children taught these lessons the State has a right to use paternalism to do what is right for society as a whole.
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
In Minersville Pennsylvania, Lillian Gobitis a 12 year old and her brother William a 10 year old were expelled from school for refusing to salute the national flag. They are Jehovah’s Witness and believed that saluting the flag is a form of idol worship, and a direct violation of the second commandment in the Bible. The local board of education required both teachers and pupils to participate in the ceremony. William wrote a letter to the school board saying “I do not salute the flag because I have promised to do the will of God.” The school board did not change their mind and left them expelled.
Kids, in elementary school and middle school especially, are constantly being bombarded with propaganda. People love to push things on other people because, Heaven forbid, someone disagrees with them. One particular issue is religion and the role it plays in schools. Some teachers and parents are completely against any religious activity at their child’s school and other teachers and parents want everything to do with religion in schools. A big part of the debate includes the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment and the 1st amendment itself. In 1971, in the Lemon v. Kurtzman Supreme Court hearing, it was decided that there are three questions that need to be answered to decide if something goes against the Establishment clause; is there or will there ever have a secular purpose, does it advance or inhibit religion, and does it require the government to get involved with religion. (Marshall 128) This seems pretty straight forward. It makes sure that the government is protecting American’s freedom of religion and keeps the government out as much as possible. Then in 1973 in Miller v. California it was held that the 1st amendment doesn’t ...
In her article “Beyond the Wall of Separation: Church-State in Public Schools”, Martha McCarthy, a Chancellor Professor and chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, makes it clear that her aim is to inform educators of the legal history and constitutional precedents of the Establishment clause and Free speech Clause of the First Amendment with an attached understanding of how educators should implement these findings. She summarizes and analyzes key Supreme Court rulings over the course of the 20th century as they pertain to religious expression in public schools. She clarifies the usage of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause, including recent changes in trends that have been noted in the Supreme Court during the last decade. From the late 1940’s to the 1990’s most Supreme court rulings focused on the Establishment Clause to the increasing exclusion of the Free Speech Clause such that students were increasingly limited in the ways they were allowed to express themselves in school even in a private manner. In recent years, however, it has been noted that forcing students to suppress their religious expression is itself a religious statement and one that denies the role of religion in people’s lives. McCarthy notes that the public schools must take a neutral stand in relation to religion such that they do not defend or deny its role in people’s lives, either directly or indirectly.
In the last decade, many states are trying to reinstate the teaching of creationism in public schools under the more academic title of “intelligent design.” Funded heavily by the Discovery Institute, a conservative think-tank, intelligent design is an attempt to produce scientific backing for the idea that an intelligent being (the Abrahamic God) has designed all life on earth.... ... middle of paper ... ... Branch, Glenn. A. A. "Intelligent Design is not Science, and Should not Join Evolution in the Classroom."
The “establishment” or “religion” clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Education Week, 2003, para. 2). It is from this clause that the idea of separation of church and state comes. It is also the basis for much of the debate regarding the practice of religion in public schools (Education Week, 2003). One of the big questions regarding the religion issue is where to draw the line between separation of church and state and religious freedom. The practice of religion in public schools can balance these two ends by allowing students to individually exercise their religious freedom, so long as they do not interfere with that of other students.
Education Week talks about the freedom and practice of religion stated in the United States Constitution and how the government has altered that in their article, “Religion in Schools”. They touch base on how “under God” was taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance and elaborate how students can participate in religious clubs outside of school because of the placement of the federal Equal Access Act of 1984.