Establishment Clause Analysis

Texas currently does not have mandated sexual education for students. In a deeply conservative state, sexual education is extremely taboo because many parents feel as though sexual education can promote sexual activity in young adults. When tracking the history of sexual education in Texas, it is evident that there is an overwhelming amount of programs that encourage abstinence as the only method of contraception. Although Texas does not require sexual education to be taught, it does have limitations as to what can be taught. Legally, sexual education programs have to stress abstinence as the primary method of contraception. When taught, it is not legally required that medically accurate information about contraception be taught. In addition to this, there is no law requiring sexual education to be culturally appropriate or unbiased and it is perfectly legal to promote religion while providing sexual education. Parents must be notified and have the option to refuse to suscept their child to sexual education. Additionally, any sexuality other than heterosexuality must be portrayed in a negative light in Texas as Texas law prevents sexual education from being inclusive of LGBTQ people. In 2014, Texas received over $5.1 million dollars in federal funding to

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).

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

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).

In concurrence with King, requiring professors in Christian Charter schools to refrain from wearing non-Christian articles of faith is not a reasonable infringement of Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Oakes test was conducted to deduce that the Charter infringement is not justifiable in a free and democratic society. The first step of the Oakes test is to determine if the infringement is “prescribed by law”. A common law rule or regulation, in addition to legislation can constitute a limit “prescribed by law” (Sharpe & Roach, 2013, p66).

The 1987 case Edwards v. Aguillard requires any religiously-related instruction to have ?a clear secular purpose? [482 U.S. 578]. The legislation addressed in this case?the Creationism

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

Due to the United States’ Supreme Court reviewing religious cases, on average, more than once a year since 1962, the Establishment Clause and Free exercise Clause have taken on a whole new meaning in public schools. Now, the two clauses are disjoined. The Establishment Clause has become the more favored one of the two, compared to the Free Exercise Clause, which is almost obsolete. Today, students

Despite adopting this test, the Supreme Court has been quick to disregard the test and lower the wall separating issues of state and faith as long as educational barriers such as the banishment of school prayer remained untouched. This quick change was evident in the 1981 ruling by the court that a law that prohibited the use of public school properties and campuses for religious purposes unconstitutional was deemed itself unconstitutional. This slow reduction of the separating wall was evident in many more cases through the Supreme Court's following history; cases such as deeming acts of the University of Virginia unconstitutional, who violated the free speech of a fundamentalist Christian group by not funding their magazine. Other following cases slowly deemed the funding of Christian organizations and schools more acceptable as Christian books and financial aid to said students, was deemed constitutionally sound if the aid went to the school, not to the students. These establishment issues not only of education but on the use of religious displays and depictions in

Delivering the Opinion of the Court, Justice Brennan invokes the Lemon test to determine the constitutionality of the Act. He begins by questioning the validity of the Act’s stated secular purpose: “to promote academic freedom.” He defines “academic freedom” as “enhancing the freedom of teachers to teach what they will” (Brennan 2579). Based on the legislative history, the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith, was to narrow the scientific curriculum because he stated that his preference would be that neither theories be taught. Thus, J. Brennan sees a ban on teaching that undermines the stated purpose. Moreover, he writes that the Act does not promote a flexibility upon the teachers that was not already

The Lemon test refers to the case Lemon vs. Kurtzman, which took place in 1971. The case was heard with two other cases involving religion and education, with the main issue being financial support for teacher salaries that were part of parochial schools. State financial aid was being awarded to non-public schools that were teaching religion, which created unsettlement (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/89.) The establishment clause was intended to prevent government involvement or support of religion.

     When the Federalist party was organized in 1791, those people who favored a strong central government and a loose constitutional interpretation coagulated and followed the ideals of men such as Alexander Hamilton. The first opposition political party in the United States was the Republican party, which held power, nationally, between 1801 and 1825. Those who were in favor of states rights and a strict construction of the constitution fell under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson. These Jeffersonian republicans, also known as anti-federalists, believed in strict adherence to the writings of the constitution. They wanted state’s rights and individual rights, which they believed could only be granted under

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.

Often, sexual education can go against an individual's moral or religious beliefs. Many schools do not teach abstinence only but teach safe sex, whereas many religious groups and families do not value intercourse before marriage. Teachers may input their own beliefs or morals into the subject matter rather than stick with the facts if they are not properly trained on how to conduct a sex education course. Sex education classes are briefly focused on during a health class or physical education. This is not a long enough period to educate students on such serious material. These arguments does not take into account the fact that students will be taught on subjects such as, sexually transmitted diseases, the reproductive system, sexually and birthing issues rather than the stuff they learn through peers, television or the internet. Many of the myths learned by students about sex swill also are discussed, such as not being able to get pregnant the first time. Classes for those of a younger group are separated by gender, saving embarrassment amongst students and teachers. Teaching sex education can have a major impact on preventing unplanned pregnancy and other sexual problems in adulthood.

As children grow, they accumulate knowledge over the years about a variety of subjects to prepare them for the future. Children learn from parents, schools, life experiences, what they watch and other influences around them, and it can be either positive learning or negative learning. There is one subject that is difficult to teach and have control over because of misunderstandings, lack of teaching, and publicity. Sex education has been a major debate for children under eighteen, because there are some parents that want it taught in schools and others that do not because of different reasons. There are currently eighteen states and the District of Columbia that require schools to provide sex education and thirty-two that do not require