Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Findings #6: History of the American Education System (Religion in Public…

- - - - “The Supreme Court has decided two major cases involving classroom curriculum; both involve the evolutionary theory of human origin. In Epperson v. Arkansas the Court held unconstitutional a state statute forbidding instruction in the public schools regarding the theory of evolution. While this case was decided before the Lemon test was fully developed, the Supreme Court stated that establishment is determined by whether the primary purpose or effect of the legislation is the advancement or inhibition of religion” (Fuller, p. 96)
        
        “In other words, the Court forbids inhibiting the instruction of evolution, a principle many feel is inapposite to traditional religion. This, at best, constitutionalizes hostility toward religion in the public classroom and, at worst, establishes a religion professing evolution over a religion professing creation. To resolve this conflict the Court must clarify the line between religion and secularism” (Fuller, p. 96)
        
        “The religion-secularism distinction is amplified in Edwards Aguillard. In Aguillard the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a Louisiana statute requiring that if evolution is taught then creation science must also be taught. The Court followed the Lemon test and inquired whether the legislature had a valid secular purpose for enacting this law” (Fuller, p. 97)
        
        “The court failed, however, to explicitly define religion or secularism. Justice Brennan, writing for the majority, explained that a religious intent exists if the legislature promotes a particular sect or promotes religion in general. This, of course, begs the question, what is a sect or what is religion in general. The definition of religion may be found in the evidence the Court uses to hold that a religious purpose exists” (Fuller, p. 97)
        
        “The Court also inferred that religious motivation must exist because historically, certain religions opposed evolution. Thus, whether a view is religious may depend on how history has defined that view. This is a fairly dangerous criteria since it would exclude "modern" religions from constitution- al protection. Moreover, it is unhelpful because the Court fails to expand on what historical criteria are used to distinguish be- tween religious and secular precepts” (Fuller, p. 98)
        
        “If the Court does not define what constitutes a religious belief, then a religious belief is whatever anyone desires. For example, a secular humanist will find the teaching in public school of any concept which leads to a belief in a Supreme Creator as unconstitutionally establishing a religion of deism. Likewise, a fundamentalist Christian will find any teaching which leads to a belief that mortality is the end of existence as unconstitutionally establishing a religion of atheism” (Fuller, p. 98)
        
        “The Court failed to adequately address what constitutes religion. The Court indicated that religion is that sphere of life which cannot be proved and therefore requires one to walk by faith. This is a frail standard by which to judge between the religious and the secular. There are times when science requires belief in what is not proven. Additionally, there are myriad instances of "proven" principles being disproved, thus one can rarely know when something is actually proven. Even accepting this as a valid distinction, plaintiff's statements made in class cannot be proven, all require faith and therefore are, according to the Court, religious dogma” (Fuller, p. 102)
        
        “Remarkably, the Court allows the teacher to discuss personal religious views, religious views so offensive to some students that the students actually tried to walk out during the discussion. Either the Court is advocating that teachers be permitted to discuss religious principles at least when interrogated regarding those principles, or the Court is asserting that the plaintiffs religious and as in Mozert the school district cannot proscribe conduct simply because it is offensive” (Fuller, 102-103)
    - -  “The Supreme Court concluded that reading the Bible itself was not violative of the First Amendment, and in fact the Court said, "the Bible is worthy of study" for secular purpose.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 104)
    - -  “The majority found that the government involvement in religion was pervasive and that the students were forced to submit to subtle coercive pressure.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 105)
    - -  “Since this "incorporation" the Court has been much more absolute in its rejection of religious precepts in the public schools. The incorporation reasoning alone, however, does not provide an entirely satisfactory explanation for the Court's almost universal rejection of religion in the public school setting.” (Fuller, 1994, pg. 108)