Teaching Religion in Public School

A family from Maryland claims that their public high school violated the students First Amendment rights by requiring them to study Islam as part of a World History course. World History is a required course mandated by the Maryland State Department of Education. One of the topics is called “Muslim World” in the unit on Middle Eastern Empires. The Muslim World curriculum was "designed to explore, among other things, formation of Middle Eastern empires including the basic concepts of the Islamic faith and how it 'along with politics, culture, economics, and geography contributed to the development of those empires.” One of the assignments was to complete a fill in the blank worksheet on the “Five Pillars of Islam” and the Plaintiff argues that she was being compelled to confess the Shahada. Students were not required to memorize or even recite the Shahada. The students were taught factual, Islam related material, including the relevant continents, biographical information about the Prophet Muhammad, and the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all trace their ancestry to Abraham. The Plaintiffs emphasized a single inappropriate statement made by the teacher who told his class that the faith of most Muslims is “stronger than the average Christian.” The Plaintiffs argued that the purpose of the comparative faith statement was to advance religion.  

This case is similar to but different from Edwards v. Aguillard. Here the court found that teaching creationism along with evolution did not have a secular purpose due to the legislative history. Instead, the purpose was “to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief.” Teaching about religion in public high school absolutely has a secular purpose. The separation of church and state does not forbid learning about religion in the public school curriculum. Teaching students basic religious literacy about the major faiths of the world can help improve interfaith dialogue and understanding when done properly. Also, there was no suggestion that anyone from the school board or the teacher held any bias for or against religion, or that the explanation of the curriculum was a cover up for a religiously-motivated purpose like that in Edwards.

Since this is an Establishment Clause issue I will run it through the Lemon Test from Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine if the class is unconstitutional. 

The Plaintiffs argue that the statement has no secular purpose because it doesn’t teach any verifiable and objective facts about Islam. In the context of the class, the statement is not entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion. It not only doesn’t attack any religious belief, but the statement was given by Mr. Bryden who is a Christian. The fact that the statement was made by a Christian negates the possibility that its purpose was to advance the Islamic faith.

The effect of the statement was not seen as the school endorsing a religion. No one drew the conclusion that because Muslim’s purportedly have a stronger faith the school views Islam as a superior religion. A single reference to a Muslim’s strength of faith does not mean that the Defendants have endorsed Islam. Since the Plaintiffs are devout Christians, they found the statement offensive but that does not warrant an Establishment Clause violation.

The statement also did not create any entanglement between government and religion. First off, the school didn’t rely on any Muslim clergy to deliver the material. Furthermore, the Defendants did not provide any direct benefit to Muslims, did not aid Muslims, and did not suggest any relationship between the school and any Islamic organization. Both the curriculum and the comparative faith statement therefore survive all three prongs of the Lemon Test.

I think it is clear that the purpose of this World History class is to teach *about* religion and not to advance religion in anyway. It is very different from Bible study courses that some school districts have instituted that courts find unconstitutional. These courses are unconstitutional because they teach the Bible as religious truth and are designed to instill in a particular religious sentiment. In contrast, the World History course is critical of religion and not devotional. I also don’t think there is an issue with the fact that this is a mandatory course for all 11th graders throughout the state of Maryland. The course does not compel anyone to express certain views, rather students are learning basic religious literacy. Therefore, I think that the court was right to dismiss the claims that this course violated the First Amendment rights of the students.