Religion+in+Schools

Court Cases Impacting the American Classroom

 Our Founding Fathers created a government, which protected our religious rights to worship freely. It was Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, that believed the government had no business getting involved in a man’s personal religious beliefs. He was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. In a reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, President Jefferson penned a phrase that is familiar in today's political and judicial circles: "a wall of separation between church and state" (Underwood, & Webb, 2006). The majority of debates over religion and education originate from the "establishment" or "religion" clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Today, that clause is commonly associated with the concept of "separation of church and state." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to mean that religion and government must stay separate for the benefit of all people. The government holds no religious viewpoint and leaves all decisions about faith and religious practice to its citizens. Our Founding Fathers made an effort to separate religion and government creating a “revolutionary experiment.” That experiment has made the United States “an envy of the world.”

 In the case of //Lemon v. Kurtzman,// referred to as the "Lemon Test," this three-prong test was used to determine if a “government action challenged under the Establishment Clause” (Underwood & Webb. 2006) violated the //clause// in the First Amendment. “In order to pass this constitutional test, the legislation must have a legitimate secular purpose; it may not advance, nor inhibit religion, and may not result in "excessive entanglement" between church and state” (Simmons, 1999). “No matter which test is used, the consistent theme remains, and that government may not actually or in appearance endorse religion” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). The //Lemon v. Kurtzman// became a benchmark for all later decisions regarding religious liberty.

In subsequent cases, the Lemon test was used effectively in striking down many governmental issues that would have provided tax dollars to religious elementary and secondary schools. The first modern Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment's Establishment of Religion Clause was //Everson v. Board of Education// (1947), “in which the Court ruled that not only is government not allowed to favor one religion over another, it also cannot favor religion over secularism”(Wikipedia, n.d.). This case was known as the "New Jersey Schools Bus Case.” //Everson// involved a New Jersey statute that authorized boards of education to reimburse parents, including those whose children went to Catholic parochial schools, for the cost of bus transportation to and from school. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, reasoning that it benefited parents, not church-affiliated schools. The decision of the Everson case was one of the first state cases to incorporate the Establishment Clause. The Court in 1947 in its Everson decision set a precedent of the “child benefit” theory. Throughout history, lawmakers have tried to get around “the prohibition of tax dollars to religious schools by utilizing the "child benefit" theory”(Simon, 1999).

Two landmark cases in particular that have fostered the appropriate guidelines for religious instruction are //McCollum v. Board of Education// (1948) and //Abington Township School District v. Schempp// (1963). //McCollum// addressed the arguable practice of “released time” which was used as a method of teaching religion. Classes were held during the school day and students could choose which denominational studies to attend. If the children chose not to participate in the religious study, they were forced to attend a secular class, specifically setup not to teach regular academic instruction because that would put those ahead of their religious counterparts. Mrs. Vashti McCollum, a mother of a nondenominational student forced to attend the secular class, protested that this violated the separation of church and state and, specifically, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By a 6-1 vote the Supreme Court disallowed the practice of allowing religious education to take place in public school classrooms during the school day. The court upheld that the use of public school facilities by religious organizations to provide religious instruction to schoolchildren violated the separation of church and state. Justice Hugo Black, in his majority opinion declared: “Pupils compelled by law to go to school for secular education are released in part from their legal duty upon the condition that they attend religious classes. This is beyond all questions a utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school system to aid religious groups to spread their faith…” Given the Court's statement, Justice Black continued with the opinion of the court and proclaimed that a public school system aiding religious groups to promote religion is a direct violation of the wall of separation between church and state.

 Likewise, the case of //Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963)// tackled a similar issue concerning religious instruction. This case involved the reading of Bible passages prior to class in public schools. At the beginning of the school day, students who attended public schools in the state of Pennsylvania were required to read at least ten verses from the Bible. After completing these readings, school authorities required all Abington Township students to recite the Lord's Prayer. Students could be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school, but //Schempp// refused on the basis that this might create a contentious circumstance between the teacher and student. Therefore, //Schempp// challenged this Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court vote by an 8-1 majority, affirmed that the laws requiring Bible reading and reciting the Lord’s Prayer in public schools were unconstitutional. Justice Clark, in his majority opinion, noted that past cases involving the First Amendment, the Court had held that the state must "be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and nonbelievers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them.” Toward the end of his opinion, Justice Clark said: “The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church, and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality.” In answer to arguments that the decision would establish in the schools a "religion of secularism," Justice Clark said: “We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism," in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe." . . . We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect.” As the following quote indicates, he made it clear that the study, of religion, as distinguished from religious exercises, is permitted. “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistent with the First Amendment.” Therefore some believe that the //Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963)// prohibited the activity of reading the Bible in school, when in reality it merely restrained the government from interfering either to promote or prohibit such activity.

The First Amendment, through the Free Excercise Clause, also provides a guarantee to the citizen of the United States of a right to worship as he/she chooses. This was evidenced in //Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)//. In this case Amish parents argued that their rights were being violated. The Amish educate their children through the 8th grade. Their belief is that high school attendance emphasizes qualities of self-distinction, scientific accomplishment, as well as competitiveness. These qualities are contrary to the values of their community, making it difficult for them to instill appropriate values in their young adolescents. Attendance in high school also deprives the children of providing labor for the families. The state claimed its purposes, with regards to educating its people, is to prepare its citizens to participate in the political system and to prepare a people capable of supporting themselves. In this case the court sided with the Amish, claiming that one or two years of additional education will not significantly affect these state interests. Wisconsin v. Yoder set the precedence that states cannot assert an absolute right in requiring high school education if it prevents a people of instilling their faith in their children.

 There are many issues facing the American classroom teachers. One such issue is that of creationism versus the belief in intellectual design. There have been three major court cases in the United States testing whether creationist or intelligent design ideas may be taught or promoted in public schools. The following are brief summaries of each case, and an overview of the decisions. For full details, see the references at http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/court-cases.php. These cases come from a summary by David H. Bailey in his May 2011 publication, "Court Cases: Science Meets Religion."

**McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education**  This U.S. District Court case stemmed from a 1981 law signed by the Governor of Arkansas entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." This law mandated that "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science." Several groups filed suit, on three grounds: (a) violation of the first amendment (that the government may not prohibit or favor specific religions); (b) violation of a right to academic freedom under the free speech clause of the first amendment, and (c) that the Act was impermissibly vague. The judge found that the law did indeed violate separation of church and state. He based his decision on what is known as the "Lemon" test, named after a 1971 court decision: "First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ... ; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'" The judge found that "creation science" is characterized by belief in: 1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; 2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; 3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; 4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; 5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds. Based on expert testimony, Judge Overton concluded that "creation science" is "simply not science," and instead is undeniably a religious notion promoted by certain fundamentalist movements. Thus, Overton ruled, "The Act therefore fails both the first and second portions of the test in Lemon v. Kurtzman."

**Edwards v. Aguillard**  In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a Louisiana "Creationism Act," which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in public elementary and secondary schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science." In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down the law. They ruled: The Act is facially invalid as violating of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. ... The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." It does not enhance the freedom of teachers to teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of the evidence." ... The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.

**Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District**  This U.S. District case arose after the Dover [Pennsylvania] School of Directors passed a resolution stating "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of Life is not taught." Subsequently the School District announced that teachers would be required to read the following statement to their biology classes: The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.

As the court cases indicate and continue to take place, separating church and state is a continual process. Actions are constantly being challenged in state courts and some in the U.S. Supreme Court. Such cases are evidence that Thomas Jefferson's intent to instill a "wall of separation between Church and State," although a necessary one, is not an easy one to interpret at times. Thanks to the //Lemon// test, schools and governments are able to better navigate this distinction between secular and religious freedoms. Better guidelines and preceding court cases enable schools and the classroom teacher to teach in a way that respects the freedoms of all of its pupils.