Recently in class, my partner and I gave a presentation about Supreme Court cases in which the 1st amendment, and specifically the Establishment Clause, was violated. The main correlation between our cases(Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas) is the separation of Church and State. Everybody has varying opinions when it comes to how involved religion should be within our society, and inevitably that leads to it being entangled within our government. The Establishment Clause states that the government cannot force religion upon American citizens, yet that seems to be a constant political fight.
In the past, the Establishment Clause appeared countless times in court and many due to the debate between beliefs in evolution versus creationism. Creationism, a fundamentalist Christian theory on human existence, was believed by the majority of the population in the past, which is why it was originally taught in public schools. This theory taught that people were purposely made by divine creation, on a biblical level. When the Supreme court ruled that Darwin’s opposing theory of evolution would be taught in replacement of creationism, the country reacted negatively. Many parents wanted their children to learn what they had always believed in, and not this relatively new theory that was most likely shocking to many.
Of Pandas and People, a science textbook published in 1989, quickly became a controversial piece of work. The author’s perspective was rooted in pseudoscience, which are beliefs that are mistaken to be based upon real scientific evidence. The lessons in the book teach that humans did not evolve by chance, and rather, were created by a higher existence. However, that existence wasn’t necessarily God. Sound familiar? The textbook taught the pseudoscientific theory of how humans came to exist, which was quite similar to the basics of creationism. Like Mr. Stewart talked about in class after our presentation, the discussion proposed in Of Pandas and People is often argued to be a loophole around the 1st amendment, involving church and state without directly stating that intelligent design is based on a religious foundation.
So, how far can these strategies and loopholes go? The Establishment Clause is not one, clear line that can be drawn between church and state. Rather, it is a vague constitutional right that guides the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases like Epperson v. Arkansas. There are still many tactics that currently bring religion into the government, even if they’re not in plain sight. In conclusion, is it really possible to have a fully enforced Establishment Clause and a completely religion-free governing system?
The multiple layers to this issue are very interesting. Religion is something that has always been important to Americans and every parent believes their child should be taught something a certain way. However, in my opinion, if there is scientific proof behind a theory, it should be taught in schools.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your point. While religion clearly qualifies as a belief and is something that should be left to the individual(or family/community) to decide, believe, or figure out for themselves, science is not a belief system in that it doesn't rely on faith but on facts and evidence. Because of this, the government should not be prevented from teaching evolution in public schools. The scientific theory is based on facts and evidence, not in faith or belief, meaning there is no 1st Amendment restriction on this government action. While evolution is only a theory and not hard facts like history or math, it is still not a belief system; it is an idea proposed on the basis of hard evidence. I feel this differentiation – something you have faith in versus an idea proposed by evidence/proof – is important when considering the question of how far to take the Establishment Clause in government power.
DeleteI believe it is very important that education be seperated from religion. Looking at the Edwards v. Aguillard case (http://theconversation.com/30-years-after-edwards-v-aguillard-why-creationism-lingers-in-public-schools-79603) it doesn't actually ban creationism from being taught: it just makes it unconstitutional to require teachers to teach it. Therefore, this doesn't actually seperate church and state, and means that creationism can still be taught in schools. This is an issue, as anyone who is atheist or believes in a different religion will feel uncomfortable, left out, and forced into learning something they do not believe in. Religion is a sensitive topic, and we should keep it out of education, instead allowing students to learn facts in school. If churches want to teach their members creationism, then they can 100% do that. But public schools should not take this job away from the church.
ReplyDelete