Endorsement Test Case Summary

Under the Establishment Clause, “The government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization and the government may not discriminate among persons on the basis of their religious beliefs.” County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburg Chapter, 492 U.S 573, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106. L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). The Endorsement test applies to cases that involve government officials and religious beliefs at school-sponsored events. Id at 592. This could be seen if officials promote or favor religion. Id. Courts have found that if prayer being delivered at public school events, organized and supervised by school officials, regardless of the event being outside the classroom and after hours, the government is endorsing religion. Lee, 505 U.S at 604. Additionally, if the government merely pressures participates to attend a religious activity, such as an opening prayer, the government is indirectly endorsing religion. Id (Holding that school officials endorsed religion when students attended “football games” in which opening prayers were given). On the other hand, to avoid favoring religion, public officials must either embrace any religious faith or embrace none at all. Id at 609. State officials favor religion if these officials recognize one religious belief, but they do not acknowledge a dissimilar one. County of Allegheny, 492 U.S at 616. (Holding that the government did not endorse religion by recognizing two different beliefs). Thus, the Endorsement Test is satisfied if either the school board promotes religious activities or if the board’s punishment of Mr. Pitstick is in favor of a religious

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

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 1920’s was a time of prosperity and change in the United States, but with change comes disagreements. One of the largest debates during this time period, and still today, was the debate between science and religion. Many people were Christians in America during this time and they believed that the story of how God created the Earth should be taught in public schools. These people were called “fundamentalists.” They believed nothing could compare to or be as powerful as God’s word. The other side to this debate were the Modernists, or the ones who believed in science rather than religion. Modernists wanted to teach the theory of evolution in public schools instead of the Creation story the Fundamentalists believed in (“United States in History”). All of these different opinions led to one of the most famous trials known as the Scopes v. State of Tennessee trial. John Scopes was a substitute teacher in Tennessee who decided to teach the theory of evolution to a science class. Scopes was accused of violating the Butler Act, which states that teaching anything that

In the “Monkey Trial” William Jennings Bryan spoke as the leader of the Christian fundamentalist, what him and his followers wanted to do was for the people and court to find out how unfair it was for something that they perceived as “materialistic and anti-religious be taught in the very same classrooms from which all religious instruction had been banned” (Thomas, 2009 p. 25). This situation created a lot of debates among the people. Many things changed in the American public schools that arise because of the evolution theory and religion.

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).

Starting with the Scopes Trial, many more cases have occurred concerning the teaching of evolution. “By 1928 every southern state except Virginia had debated or was considering legislation banning the teaching of evolution in the

In the wake of the Scopes trial in Tennessee, the State of Arkansas passed an “anti-evolution” statute in 1928, that made it illegal "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches the doctrine or theory that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animal.” Forty years later, the case of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) was argued before the Supreme Court. The case originated in 1965, when Susan Epperson was hired to teach 10th grade biology at Little Rock Central High School. The local school board had recently adopted, as a part of an approved curriculum, a new biology textbook that included a section on evolution. Immediately, Epperson recognised her dilemma; that to teach the required curriculum would put her at risk for dismissal under the “anti-evolution” statute. A suit was filed to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, and the State Chancery Court of Pulaski County ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. This ruling was overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1967. Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

The Scopes trial, writes Edward Larson, to most Americans embodies “the timeless debate over science and religion.” (265) Written by historians, judges, and playwrights, the history of the Scopes trial has caused Americans to perceive “the relationship between science and religion in . . . simple terms: either Darwin or the Bible was true.” (265) The road to the trial began when Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925 banning the teaching of evolution in secondary schools. It was only a matter of time before a young biology teacher, John T. Scopes, prompted by the ACLU tested the law. Spectators and newspapermen came from allover to witness

Findings: The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Alton Lemon. The court ruled in an 8-0 (unanimous) decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The First Circuit had ruled against the Rhode Island law under the First Amendment

In the wake of seemingly contradictory rulings concerning the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, the Supreme court had to create a series of tests to create consistency for future cases and lower courts. For Establishment Clause jurisprudence, the Court created the Lemon test and the Endorsement test. For the Free Exercise Clause, the Court created the Undue Burden test, the Least Restrictive Means test, and the Compelling Interest test. Although the Court seemed to devise the Compelling Interest test to consistently apply in religious free exercise case, the cases of Sherbert v Verner, Wisconsin v. Yoder, Thomas v. Review Board, and Goldman v. Weinberger demonstrated that the Court can not consistently apply the Compelling Interest test where it seems relatively arbitrary and answers no practical questions. What are the standards of a compelling interest? Who has the burden of proof for demonstrating a compelling interest? Both of these questions are not adequately answered in the Court’s jurisprudence and reverts the situation back to before the compelling interest was made.

A public official allowing the deputy clerk to sign a same-sex marriage license does not violate the “Lemon Test”. However, making adherence to a religion can prohibit religion. Justice O’Connor concurred, that the Establishment Clause can prohibit in two principle ways and “One is excessive *688 entanglement with religious institutions, which may interfere with the independence of the institutions, give the institutions access to government or governmental powers not fully shared by nonadherent of the religion, and foster the creation of political constituencies defined along religious lines. E. g., Larkin v. Grendel 's Den, Inc., 459 U. S. 116 (1982)” (Lynch 688). When all things considered, to avoid entanglement between the state and church, and to affirm a religious right, RFRA claims will require some measures from the endorsement test. Importantly, when applying RFRA to Byrd’s case there was no entanglement between the state and church; Byrd’s refusal to sign same-sex marriage license was not impermissibly used to influence his religion; neither was he trying to avoid the government interference with religion. However, for a RFRA claims; it is required some measures from the endorsement test because of the growing increase of religion into the workplace. Providing that only the endorsement test will protect the religious rights of any one who is in the political community.

The theory behind the origin of life has always been a sensitive and delicate topic. There are many ideas or theories of how this planet and all life forms on it appeared. However, there have been two main ideas battling for decades, creationism and evolution. Creationism is the idea where a divine power created all matter and life. Evolution is a scientific theory that current species have evolved from ancestral species over time. This debate made its debut into classrooms in 1925, during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Issues surrounding evolution and creationism in the classroom are still prevalent today. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”. The Establishment Clause is a provision to the First Amendment prohibiting the government from creating any law “respecting an establishment of religion”. This amendment and clause are repeatedly referenced in

Throughout the Arkansas trial one of the most significant argument that greatly affected the decision of Judge Overton was the insinuation that creation science was not science. Aside from the five characteristics that Judge Overton provided, he also claimed that creation science was in fact a religion. Gilkey (1982) commented on the vagueness of the Arkansas Act 590, with its statement regarding the definition of creation science by using words such as “kinds”. He accepted that Act 590 had the intention of creating fairness and equality with regards to

Public schools are a place to learn proven facts and some very well—known and accepted theories. These schools have been led this way for a long time and show no signs of changing. Many states around the country have rejected the teaching of creationism in public schools, since the subject is so controversial among teachers and parents. In Ohio, a bill to develop new science content standards was not successfully passed. Many creationists were upset when they discovered that the first drafts of the standards were filled with evolutionary content, without any allowance for alternative explanations of life’s origins. In the uproar, the state board held a special meeting to investigate the process that the writing team and advisory committee used to draft the science standards (Matthews, Answering Genesis). This is why learning the facts about evolution should be taught at school. By doing this, there would be much less confrontation between teachers, students, and parents. If one has the desire to learn about creationism or any other beliefs of how the world came to be, one should learn it at a place outside of school, such as church or at home.