Religion in the Schools

1
Religion in the Schools

• The Decisions of the Supreme Court

2

• Congress shall make no law respecting an
  establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
  free exercise thereof
• -The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of
  The U.S. Constitution

3
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon
  Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our
  parents, our teachers and our Country.

Question Is it unconstitutional to, as
stipulated by the State Board of Regents (NY),
require the above prayer to be recited aloud by
each class in the presence of a teacher at the
beginning of each school day?
4
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• Points to Consider
• Atheists believe in no God
• Agnostics are unsure of the presence of God
• The prayer recognizes one God many religions are
  polytheistic
• 22 State Attorney Generals wrote to the Supreme
  Court in favor of the prayer
• Board had the following regulation "Neither
  teachers nor any school authority shall comment
  on participation or nonparticipation...nor
  suggest or request that any posture or language
  be used or dress be worn or be not used or not
  worn."
• The NY State Court and NY Court of Appeals sided
  with the school district when the parents of ten
  students filed a lawsuit

5
Engel v. Vitale (1962)

• What effect will the Supreme Courts Decision
  have?

• Rule against this prayer and make all prayer in
  school unconstitutional
• Rule for this prayer and close the doors on
  future school prayer cases

6
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The Decision

• With a 6-1 vote, it was deemed unconstitutional
  to have school-sponsored prayer.
• However, students are not prohibited from praying
  in school, such as before meals or before/after
  class.

Source http//www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prag.
htm
7
Abington School District v. SchemppMurray v.
Curlett

• In 1963, these two cases were decided together
  with an 8-1 vote. They established the
  following

• Reading the Lords Prayer or verses of the Bible
  in school is unconstitutional
• Even if prayer is voluntary, it still violates
  the establishment clause
• to withstand the structures of the
  Establishment Clause there must be a secular
  legislative purpose and a primary effect that
  neither advances nor inhibits religion.

• Sources http//religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/
  court/abin_v_sche.html
• http//atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religio
  n/bl_l_AbingtonSchempp.htm

8
McCollum v. Bd. Of Ed. (1948)

• School allowed time for classes in one of many
  religions
• Attendance was taken and given to teachers
• Students needed parental permission to
  participate
• Students not participating could not take an
  academic class, as to not get ahead of religious
  peers

9
McCollum v. Bd. Of Ed. (1948)
With a 6-1 vote, these classes were deemed
unconstitutional

• Tax-funded schools were aiding in the spread of
  religion
• Students became a captive audience for clergy,
  as they were forced to remain in school during
  these classes.
• Source http//atheism.about.com/library/decisions
  /religion/bl_l_McCollumBoard.htm

10
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000)

• Prayer said over P.A. before varsity football
  games
• While suit was pending, students held two
  elections They voted to allow these
  invocations and then voted on who would deliver
  them
• District Court ordered that prayers could neither
  be affiliated with a particular religious group
  or attempt to convert anyone.

11
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000)
The Court ruled 6-3 that the prayer was
unconstitutional for these reasons

• Not given at a public forum where all messages
  are acceptable
• Some students (band, cheerleaders, players, etc.)
  must attend games
• Not private speech, as argued by the school
  school grounds, school-sponsored activity, school
  P.A, read by student, supervision of faculty
• Sources http//supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/9
  9-62.ZS.html
• http//atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religio
  n/bl_l_SantaFeDoe.htm

12
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

• Louisiana had a Creationism Actif evolution
  was taught in school, creationism was required to
  be taught, too.
• Louisiana provides schools with materials to
  teach creationism, but not evolution.
• Louisiana does not require the teaching of
  creationism it is only mentioned when evolution
  is taught.

13
Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

• The Creationism Act was deemed unconstitutional
  by a 7-2 vote because

• The Act does not have a secular purpose. It does
  not advance academic freedom and restricts the
  abilities of teachers to teach what they deem
  appropriate.
• The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a
  religious doctrine by requiring either the
  banishment of the theory of evolution from public
  school classrooms or the presentation of a
  religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its
  entirety.
• Source http//religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/c
  ourt/edwa_v_agui.html

14
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
(1993)

• Jeff Zobrest was a deaf student attending
  Catholic school
• The Federal and Appellate courts dismissed the
  lawsuit filed against the school district calling
  for Jeff to be provided an interpreter
• Was the school district required, under the
  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
  (which would likely have provided an interpreter
  if he had been in public school) and the Free
  Exercise Clause, to provide an interpreter?

15
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
(1993)
In a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that it was the
school districts duty to provide an interpreter

• The private school was not being relieved of any
  financial burden that they otherwise would have
  to bear (as in the case of purchasing textbooks
  or other supplies for religious schools).
• The interpreter would not add to the religious
  environment in which Jeff was educated.
• The Dissenting viewpoint
• It is unclear whether the law requires an
  interpreter to be provided, thus the state should
  decide the case.

16
Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District
(1993)

• What was the importance of the case?
• The case allowed public employees to work within
  private, religious schools. Even if they are
  translating religious information, they are not
  advancing a religion or creating a more religious
  environment.
• Source http//religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/c
  ourt/zobr_v_cata.html