Endorsement Test

Religion is one of the most controversial issues in society today. The concern of allowing prayer in schools is an on-going debate and has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Religious school clubs, after school activities, curriculums, and moments of silence during school are just a few of the court cases that judges have administered. People in favor of prayer in schools believe that their children can only learn certain values through religious practice. On the other hand, an individual against religious practice in schools views this issue as an infringement on his or her children’s rights as Americans.

Constitution's First Amendment requirement that the District neither establish religion in the schools nor prohibit students’ free exercise of religion according to pertinent interpretation and application of those constitutional provisions by the courts. Any religious characters need to conform to policy 8800” (Markesan District School, 2013). “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court have made it clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices” (Markesan District School, 2015). Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the “inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected. District staff members shall not use prayer, religious readings, or religious symbols as a devotional exercise or in an act of worship or celebration” (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.) (Markesan District School, 2015). Having examined the Markesan District School First Amendment related to this topic the next step is to conclude my research on this topic.

Since the Declaration of Independence was drafted founding itself on individual privileges and choice, happiness and democracy, a multitude of concerns have kindled the rights disputes that we see making law an active and continually growing and interesting area of interest today. Issues arose included women suffrage, civil equality, slavery, the ability to hold a religious forum, along with many others. And, though the context and times have significantly changed with these concerns there still remains a constant struggle between state, religion, and schools. Prayer in public schools is still a topic of conversation. The giving of religious gifts to administrators and the funding of schools through tax-payer monies are

The First Amendment is designed to protect all citizens by giving them the right to express themselves in different ways. In doing so, we still have to be careful on how we do it. Students have the right to express themselves as long as it does not cause any disruption. In my school district, we abides by the First Amendment by not forbidding all mention of religion in the school system (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). The only part that is prohibited is the advancement or inhibition of religion (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015). My school district feels that there’s nothing unconstitutional about using religious subjects or materials as long as it is in compliance to the neutrality of the education program (Pamlico County Board of Education, 2015).

The right to freedom of expression of ones religion is at stake in this case. Mrs. Williams has a right to express her religion freely. However, based upon the Establishment Clause which prohibits any law “respecting the establishment of religion”, she does not have the right to force others to conform to her way of thinking. At the same time, students and community members have a right to express their religion, too. They also have a right not to have another person’s religion forced on them. So there is only one individual right at stake here, but it is not possible to respect this right of behalf of all the claimants. While the majority of the community, the school board, and some students will feel that it is Mrs. Williams’ right to keep the bulletin board posted, some community members, students, and ACLU feel it is their right not to keep it posted.

In 1995, Doe v. Duncanville Independent School District centered around a female student-athlete and her unwillingness to participate in prayer activity. She claimed her refusal to engage in team sponsored worship subjected her to ridicule from teammates, peers, and spectators. The Supreme Court ruled that the school district had failed the Lemon Test by endorsing religion through employee-led prayer, which is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause (Lee, 2005). As a result, “school officials, administrators, and employees were prohibited from initiating, leading, sponsoring, or promoting prayer at athletic events, or using the public address system for similar purposes” (Willett, 2014). This may not have been the popular decision, but

The Union Free School District No.9 (also known as the Herricks School District), in New Hyde Park, New York, voted in favor of adopting this prayer into their public schools. Parents of ten pupils attending schools in this school district, sued the school board, saying that the prayer went against their religious views and the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law, "respecting the establishment of religion." To say that the Regent's prayer is unconstitutional is an oxymoron in itself, for this

The Lemon Test, which was created in a case called Lemon V. Kurtzman, consists of three “prongs” (Speich 275). They are that “governmental action be supported by a secular purpose, that it not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and that it ‘not foster “an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.”’” (qtd. in Conkle). In other words, the first “prong” requires the court to question the intent of the government or group in charge of creating the policy; the second prong asks the court to determine the result of the policy and its effects on religion, and the last “prong” asks the court to not complicate the dynamic of the church and the state (Speich 275). The Endorsement test is used after the first two prongs of the lemon test have been verified. First occurring in Lynch V. Donnelly, the Endorsement test states that the “government cannot endorse, favor, promote, or prefer any religious belief or practice” (Speich 277). The test asks the judges if the policy in question merely looks like it endorses religion. The Coercion test, which is sometimes used instead of the lemon test such as in Lee v. Weisman case, asks if the policy tricks members of the minority or “dissenting” religion into participating (Schweitzer; Speich 278).

A student at Westside High School requested to form a Christian Club that would meet after school. The club would be granted the same privileges as the other student groups at the school, but they did not have a faculty sponsor. Her request was denied by the principal stating that the club would violate the Establishment Clause and the School Board policy requiring a faculty member to sponsor the club. Mergens took her concerns to the School Board. The School Board upheld the principal’s decision. Mergens filed a lawsuit against the Board of Education of Westside Community Schools, for denying the request for a Christian

The case of Wallace v. Jaffree calls into question the constitutionality of an Alabama statute that authorized teachers to lead a one-minute period of silence for “meditation or voluntary” prayer in all public schools. Ishmael Jaffree, the parent of three students in the Mobile County Public School system filed a complaint that two of his three children had been “subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination,” as a result of Alabama statute 16-1-20.1 and asked for an injunction prohibiting Mobile County schools from “maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services.” The purpose of Jaffree’s complaint was to prohibit the devotional services occurring in his children’s school and the consequent mockery of his children that occurred when they refused to recite the prayers to “Almighty God” (Stevens, 40). This type of law in Alabama public schools was not the first of its kind. Prior to statute 6-11-20.1, Alabama passed law 16-1-20 authorizing one minute of silence in public schools for meditation. After the authorization of statute 16-1-20.1 came 16-1-20.2, which allowed teachers to lead “willing students” in a prayer (Stevens, 40).

Abington School District v. Schempp is a 1963 Supreme Court Case that challenged religious prayer and teachings in Pennsylvania public schools. The Pennsylvania law made it a requirement for schools in all districts to read from the Bible (at least 10 verses) every day before class began. There was also a clause included in the state action that allowed for any child to be excused from the reading with specific permission from their parent or guardian. The question that this case asks is if it is unconstitutional for public schools to mandate children to partake in Bible teachings and practices before classes began. The reason this case was heard in front of the Supreme court is because the Abington School District wanted to reverse an earlier decision by a district court. The district court decided in favor of the Schempp family and found that forced prayer in public schools, even with an opt out clause, still violates the Constitution under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Once the case was heard in front of the United States Supreme Court, eight out of the nine justices agreed with the previous district court’s ruling and found that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional.

A couple of the families were Jewish, another family was atheist, one parent was Unitarian and the last parent was of an ethical culture society. The Parents were to believe that the school was violating the first amendment of the constitution and this was not right; that according to Thomas Jefferson there should be a separation of state and church. Never before had the public school board been argued against with prayer like issues ( Haas, pg 7-20).

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

Advocates for incorporating request to God in school have contended for quite a while that banning the act of supplication to God in school is a barefaced infringement of religious opportunity as characterized in the Free Exercise Clause. By permitting supplication to God in

Any such lawsuit against the school district would probably not prevail, given that the principal made his or her decision from a legally defensible position. A way in which the principal would able to make a legally defensible decision regarding students’ First Amendment rights is to use the Lemon Test. First Amendment Center (2015) states, "The Lemon test, based on the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lemon v. Kurtzman, is the standard of judicial review in cases involving the establishment clause of the First Amendment" (para.