72 PART oNE • THE AMERiCAN sYsTEM
violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment. At trial, the parents lost. On
appeal, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the regents’ action was unconstitutional
because “the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of a reli-
gion must mean at least that in this country it is no part of the business of government
to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part of a
religious program carried on by any government.”The debate over school Prayer Continues. Although the Supreme Court has ruled
repeatedly against officially sponsored prayer and Bible-reading sessions in public schools,
other means for bringing some form of religious expression into public education have
been attempted. In 1985, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional an Alabama
law authorizing one minute of silence for prayer or meditation in all public schools.^7
The Court concluded that the law violated the establishment clause because it was “an
endorsement of religion lacking any clearly secular purpose.” Since then, the lower courts
have interpreted the Supreme Court’s decision to mean that states can require a moment
of silence in the schools as long as they make it clear that the purpose of the law is secular,
not religious.Forbidding the Teaching of Evolution. For many decades, certain religious groups
have opposed the teaching of evolution in the schools. To these groups, evolutionary the-
ory directly counters their religious belief that human beings did not evolve but were cre-
ated fully formed, as described in the biblical story of the creation. State and local attempts
to forbid the teaching of evolution, however, have not passed constitutional muster in the
eyes of the United States Supreme Court. For example, in 1968 the Supreme Court held
that an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution violated the establishment
clause because it imposed religious beliefs on students.^8
Nonetheless, state and local groups around the country continue their efforts against
the teaching of evolution. Some school districts have considered teaching the creationist
theory of “intelligent design” as an alternative explanation of the origin of life. Proponents
of intelligent design contend that evolutionary theory has “gaps” that can be explained
only by the existence of an intelligent creative force (God).
The federal courts took up the issue of intelligent design in 2005. The previous year,
the Dover Area Board of Education in Pennsylvania had voted to require the presentation
of intelligent design as an explanation of the origin of life. In December 2005, a U.S.
district court ruled that the Dover mandate was unconstitutional. Judge John E. Jones III
criticized the intelligent design theory in depth.^9 All of the school board members who
endorsed intelligent design were voted out of office, and the new school board declined
to appeal the decision.Religious displays on Public Property. On a regular basis, the courts are asked to
determine whether religious symbols placed on public property violate the establishment
clause. A frequent source of controversy is the placement of a crèche, or nativity scene,
on public property during the Christmas season. The Supreme Court has allowed some
displays but prohibited others. In general, a nativity scene is acceptable if it is part of a
broader display that contains secular objects such as lights, Christmas trees, Santa Claus- Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
- Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D.Pa. 2005).
9781285436388_04_ch04_066-091.indd 72 10/15/13 8:56 AM
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.