On March, 11, 2021, Arkansas House Bill 1701 was filed that permitted teachers in public and charter schools to teach creationism to students ranging from kindergarten to twelfth grade. Creationism is understood as “a theory of how the earth came to exist" (National Science Association). Creationism is a highly contested theory because of its lack of scientific reasoning, and it is a religious belief that credits God as the absolute creator. The theory rejects the ideology of natural processes such as evolution. This bill is permissive, meaning that it is up to the teacher’s discretion to either teach creationism or not. Mary Bentley sponsored the bill, who previously made an attempt to pass similar legislation about creationism, but the bill did not receive a hearing as it died when the legislature recessed. Senator Garry Stumblefield joined forces with Bentley in sponsoring House Bill 1701.
Prior to the introduction to Arkansas House Bill 1701, there were court cases that created precedents involving the establishment of religion in conjunction with these contentious teachings. The case, Epperson v. Arkansas decided that an Arkansas law violated the establishment clause because it prohibited teachers in public schools from teaching evolution. The establishment clause states that the government will make no law “respecting an establishment of religion.” The basis for this law reflected the values of fundamentalist Christians who opposed the theory of evolution which violates the establishment clause. The case Edwards v. Aguillard also serves as an important precedent which decided that a Louisiana law which allowed the theory of evolution to be taught only in conjunction to creation-science was a violation of the constitution. The court utilized the Lemon Test introduced during Lemon v. Kurtzman to assert that this law violated the establishment clause. This Arkansas House Bill 1701 is a salient issue regarding religion because the objection to teaching creationism is one of establishment. In terms of constitutional and religious law, the question at stake is if the teaching of creationism is a violation of the establishment of religion.
I believe that teaching of creationism in public and charter schools is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Due to the fact that creationism reflects the values of Fundamentalist Christians without scientific reasoning, it is enough evidence to suggest that it is an establishment of religion. In a 1971 court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Lemon Test was enacted to evaluate the potential violations of the establishment clause. In terms of evaluating the constitutionality of the teaching of creationism in public schools, I will utilize the Lemon Test in my argument. The Lemon test is a three pronged test, and the first provision focuses that the law has a secular legislative purpose. Clearly, the introduction to this bill is not secular because of its direct religious implications which violates the establishment clause. The second provision is that its primary effect cannot advance any religion. Again, this bill does advance the beliefs of Christian fundamentalism because creationism credits the biblical account of the creation of the universe. Not only does this bill fail to have a secular purpose, but also it promotes and advances a specific religion. It is also imperative to note that these school children are impressionable, and it is possible that this teaching of creationism could be interpreted as means of coercion. The last provision of the Lemon Test is that legislation cannot have excessive government entanglement with religion. The teaching of creationism within public schools clearly entangles the religious sphere with the government sphere. Additionally, these teachings would require funding, which would only entangle religion and government more. The wall separating church and state will be under attack by the introduction of creationism within the public school. In terms of precedent, this bill should be deemed unconstitutional because of the findings from both Epperson v. Arkansas and Edwards v. Aguillard. The introduction of this bill would ignore the rulings of these previous court cases. If this bill is passed and creationism is introduced into public schools, this will create a slippery slope, enabling other religious facets to potentially interfere with government. This house bill is a violation of the establishment of religion because it lacks a secular purpose, advances a certain religion, and entangles the religious sphere and public sphere. The introduction of this bill would have dangerous ramifications to the wall separating church and state.
https://ncse.ngo/creationism-bill-introduced-arkansas.
12 comments:
I also agree that the teaching of creationism within public schools would violate the establishment clause. I think the mention of the Lemon test by the author is particularly relevant as this law serves no real secular purpose and even though it would be optional for teachers to talk about creationism I think that it would still constitute an establishment of religion as there are strictly religious reasons for the presentation of a creationist view.
This author mentions the term “slippery slope” in relation to what the government allows by permitting creationism to be taught in public schools. I tried to apply this idea to a counterargument. Is it not a “slippery slope” if the government restricts one religion’s beliefs and that could open a door to more bans of religious practice in the future? However, even in my pondering of this “slippery slope”, I still found myself agreeing with the author. The government, whether going by the agreement made in Lemon v. Kurtzman or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, is blurring the protected public sanctity that should be neutrality when it comes to religion by encouraging through the allowance of the teaching of creationism.
I agree that creationism should not be taught in public schools. This is a direct involvement of religion in public spheres which violates the Establishment Clause. The government should not be creating laws where the main purpose is to implement religion into the teaching of the creation of the Earth public school students. While it doesn't have to be taught by every single teacher, having the option to do so still violates the Establishment Clause because the topic that the teachers may choose to teach is inherently religious.
This case describes public funds being used to teach creationism which is a violation of the establishment clause. Creationism is a manifestation of the biblical story and can cause entanglement between church and state. However, in referring to the Epperson v. Arkansas case, should public school teachers be allowed to mention creationism just like the court decided teachers should be allowed to mention evolution? Is there a secular purpose in teaching both theories of creation to enhance the education of children? Maybe. Both of these theories are widely believed by different sects of humans and making students aware of the contrasts could be a beneficial tool to education.
I agree with my peers where Creationism is in violation of the Establishment Clause because public funds are being used to promote education that is related to religion, hence the idea that God created Earth and stands as the absolute power. For students that are Atheist, might see this as conflicting as it goes against their religious views. The law seems to serve as a secular purpose as it uses the story of Earth based off of biblical stories that many people do not view as sufficient reason and question those stories in comparison to the science of evolution. With the practice of Creationism in schools, is there equal opportunities to engage in other religious perspectives of how the Earth was created?
Anna, I agree with your analysis. I believe that the teaching of Creationism violates the Establishment Clause. I appreciate your use of the lemon test to support your reasoning because the test helps to clearly outline the first amendment violation at play here. As you discuss, the children here are impressionable and teaching Creationism "promotes and advances a specific religion." However, I do appreciate the perspective Anthony addresses above. Since evolution is being taught should creationism be taught as well? I'm not sure but I do appreciate this perspective.
Encouraging or even allowing religious beliefs to be taught at public schools in place of science in my opinion violates the establishment clause of the constitution. this could open the door to many other instances in which a teacher could shift the curriculum and teach the students solely on religious things that they believe, perhaps misleading the children into thinking that this is the opinion they need to have or else they will receive a poor grade.
I agree with Anna, as well as the other commenters here. Teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the Establishment clause because of public funds that would need to be used. This type of teaching would be promoting Christianity and not any other religion, and children are very impressionable. I do not think that there is a way to teach creationism in a secular way due to its clear ties to religion.
I agree that allowing creationism to be taught in public schools would violate the Establishment clause, and that this case was a good use of the lemon test. However, I do think it is also important to remember that the teaching of scientific ideas such as evolution in public schools can be argued as establishment of atheistic views. Even though I believe that our public education should be based in science I'm not sure how to address this potential argument but can say I think it opens up a slippery slope where every belief will have to be taught which is not feasible.
I agree with Max's last point. While I very much disagree with the views of creationism and think that especially for a course like science there is a very factual and secular purpose as well the fact that science especially evolutionary science is unbiased and peer-reviewed/widely accepted by the scientific community. I think for those who are fundamentalist and accept creationism as fact they feel as though their children are being misled and indoctrinated by some athiest scheme and misinformation. While I disagree with them and agree with the fact that teaching creationism would violate the establishment clause I think understanding their viewpoint is also important.
Yes all the comments above provide valid reasons as to why creationism should not be taught in schools and is a direct violation of the establishment clause. Everyone does seem to be in agreement on this point, but the point that was brought up in a few comments that I thought was interesting was how evolution is allowed to be taught in schools. One could argue that the theory of evolution is teaching students in school that there is no higher power or teaching them that they should not believe their religion. I think this argument could be made, however I do not think the theory of evolution can be related to anything dealing with religion. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and not a religious theory and that is why it should be allowed to be taught in all schools. On the other hand, creationism is clearly intertwined with religion.
I think that allowing creationism to be taught in public schools would violate the Establishment clause because it causes an entanglement between church and state. I do not believe the government should be creating laws implementing the teaching of the creationism because it promotes and advance a specific religion. I believe public schools should just stick to the science. I think this opens up the door for the teacher to teach the students creationism in a more religious way and make the class very biased to their own views.
Post a Comment