On January 23 of 2018 a lawsuit was
filed against Mercer County Schools in West Virginia. This lawsuit was filed
because Mercer County Schools District’s nineteen elementary, intermediate, and
middle school were offering an optional class, an elective, about the Bible,
using the curriculum, The Bible and Its Influence, and the complaint was that it was
unconstitutional to hold a religious class in a public school. These
classes, of course, were optional; nobody was forced to take them by the school
in any way. One of the plaintiffs argued that her daughter would either be
forced to take a religious class or be made fun of and ostracized by her peers
because she was not taking the class. Another plaintiff’s daughter changed
schools because she felt left out because she chose not to participate in the
optional class. The case was dismissed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia with the rejection of the argument that it is always
unconstitutional to teach about the Bible in a public-school setting.
Past
cases and precedents have also ruled that it is constitutional to have Bible
related classes in a public school, such as School District of Abington
Township v. Schempp (1963). During this case the Supreme Court said that “The
Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.” The court
also affirmed that studying the Bible is constitutional when it is presented
objectively. Sixteen years later in Wiley v. Franklin (1979), federal
court again decided that it is constitutional for schools to have optional and
voluntary classes that relate to religion to aid in their education if they so
choose to utilize the opportunity.
I
completely agree with the court’s decision in this case. As shown in past
cases, it is not a problem to have optional classes that involve religion. And
in this case specifically, children not taking the religious class just went to
other classes; they were not required to anything extra or stay late; they
simply had a different class during the period that the class on the Bible was
held. It was also apparent that not every single child in the school was taking
the class, so it is unfair to say that children were ostracized for not choosing
to take the class. Another argument against the classes may be that it is an
establishment of religion, but I do not think that it is. An establishment of
religion implies that it is a law or direct support of religion over secularity
enforced or created by the state. Therefore, it may be argued that since these
schools are part of a public-school district, the creation of these religious
classes would be direct support from the state because tax payer dollars are
what support the schools. However, outlawing them would be choosing to support
the secular classes over the religious ones, which would not be neutral law. Allowing
the religious classes to exist is neutral because it does not favor religion
over secularity. This is because the school allows both a religious class and
all other secular classes and students are not forced to take the religious
class. I agree with the court’s decision that these classes studying the Bible
in a public-school district are constitutional and protected under the First
Amendment.
8 comments:
I agree almost completely with the court and the author. The utilization of a class about the history and effects of the Bible certainly has a place in any school, even those publicly funded. As long as the class is run as a nondenominational study of what the Bible has changed in history, there is no apparent establishment of religion. The only exception I could see is the fact that the school only offers a study of the Bible, and no other influential religious texts, like the Koran or the Torah. Some citizens may interpret this as favoring and advancing one religion over others, therefore failing to pass the tests laid out in the Lemon case.
I agree with the first comment and the author. Given the fact that it was an elective that, from what the title of the course makes it seem like, was more of a history of the Bible and the role it played in history, I don't think that constitutes establishing a religion. If the title of the class was "Creationism 101," I would think that would be establishment. The only problem I can see here is that this might require government oversight if there is evidence of teachers focusing on the religious aspect of it more than the historical aspect of it. But there should be evidence of it before punishment is given.
I agree with the author. I think that past court cases set the precedent as it relates to OPTIONAL religious affiliation with public schools. The part that really stood out to me was the part about how the class would also have a historical context, not necessarily an advertisement for Christianity. I liked how it was an opt-in system as well so coercion would play a minimal role. Additionally, I agree that preferring secularism denotes this idea of neutrality between non-religion and religion.
I also agree with the author on their main argument. I believe that it is not a problem to have an optional class involving religion. This class is voluntary making it not forced upon the students to take this class. I also do not think that this case is an argument against the establishment of religion because there is no support of religion from the state/ government forces and does not favor religion over secular classes.
I agree with the author in asserting that the offering of this class at a public school is not unconstitutional. I personally think that it is very much possible to study religious subject matter without indoctrination. Religion is a topic that is almost unavoidable in studies of history, literature and even the social sciences. I do not think that the fact that the subject matter of the class involved Christianity meant that its goal, and the school's goal by extension was to convert students. This particular class merely sought to evaluate the effect that one particular religious book has had on society in general. I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider this an establishment of religion within a state-funded context. On top of that, the class was completely optional, no one was being forced to take it. Banning the class would constitute hostility towards any form of religious subject matter. As for the students who felt compelled to leave, that was a matter of personal choice, nobody told them they had to take the class to stay in the school.
I agree with Holly because I believe that this class on religion is optional, which means that no one is forcing anyone to participate and there is no coercion involved so therefore it is constitutional. Since this is a class that seems to be more based on the history of religion, I do not believe that it is establishing or privileging one religion over another. Therefore, I believe that this case is constitutional.
I agree with Holly so long as the Bible is not being taught in a religious context. To Michael's point, the class wasn't called "Creationism 101" -- the intent was secular. The Bible is objectively one of the most important texts ever written because of its immense historical and cultural significance. It would be a disservice not to give the students the option to study it (though I don't think compulsory education in this vain would be acceptable).
I do agree that the fact the class is optional and that the class aims to study the influence of the Bible in a non-religious context makes it Constitutional. However, this class walks a very narrow line between historical context and religious context that I think would almost require excessive government oversight. I was also interested with the above comment that there is a valid argument for favoring Christianity over other religions because the school only offers a class on the Bible. In all I think that teaching such a significant text in schools should be Constitutional in a historical context.
Post a Comment