The court case Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe was a court case decided by the supreme court ruled on June 19 2000. This was quite the controversial court case involving religion and the schools sponsoring of student lead prayer. The court found that the school’s policy was biased towards religion and that it violated the first amendment, to be more specific the establishment clause. It all started back in 1995 when students lead prayers before every home varsity football game. Some of the students and parents found this to be offensive. They took the name of Doe as to remain anonymous. They argued the prayer was overly “Christian” and that the school did not have the right to allow the students to lead the prayer.
This case was taken to the District Court. The District Court ruled that they can lead the prayers as long as they aren’t nonsectarian and nonproselytizing. This case then later took up an appeal and it was found that “any student lead prayer would be found unconstitutional. Because it favored Religion over Atheism. The school district, however, found other ways to get around this ruling. During the case, the school created a policy that created a voting system for the prayer problem. The students would have a majority vote for the prayer and they would
…show more content…
Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, stated "Private voluntary prayer is not only permitted in public schools; it is constitutionally protected." (Civilrights 8)”. You can pray by yourself or with your friends all you want, that is protected under freedom of religion, but the minute the government gets involved and supports the prayer, in this case the Santa Fe School District., that’s when it is
The supreme court agreed with the students but their were some restrictions on their rights. Schools had the
The San Antonio Independent School District acting on behalf of students whose families reside in poor districts, challenged the funding by arguing that underprivileged students schools lacked the property tax base that other districts
Board of Education is a very important landmark case. This case addressed the constitutionality of segregation in public schools back in the early 1950s. When the case was heard in a U.S. District Court a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the school boards. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went through all its procedures and eventually decided that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ().
Facts This case arose out of the consolidation of Lemon v Kurtzman from Pennsylvania and Early v Di Censo from Rhode Island. In the two cases, the state had adopted laws that required the state to provide aid to church related elementary and secondary schools. The Rhode Island’s statute provided for financial support for non-public schools by supplementing 15% of teachers’ salaries. The Pennsylvania statute provided funding for salaries, textbooks and instructional materials for non-public schools.
The Tinker V. Des Moines had a huge impact on history and school districts. Des Moines was community school district. The Tinker’s were a family that attended it. There were two children from the Tinker family that attended Des Moines and they are John F. Tinker and his sister Mary B. Tinker. They were suspended for protesting.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe without researching the details of the case is fairly elementary. A student council chaplain delivered a prayer before each football game. A Mormon, as well as a Catholic family, filed suit under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With just an overview of the case, you wonder what drove those families to file suit. After reading chapter five of God on Trial it gave me more understanding behind the families and the main individuals that were apart of the case.
Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."
The reasoning behind that decision was that the provision allowing students to absent themselves from that activity did not make that law constitutional. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent government interference with religion (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). Justice Douglas concurred with what the court had found. He took a broader view of the Establishment Clause, arguing that any type of public promotion of religion, including giving financial aid to religious schools, violates the establishment clause (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). I would agree with this decision in some ways, but there are some that I do not agree with.
“The students alleged that Westside 's refusal violated the Equal Access Act, which requires that schools in receipt of federal funds provide "equal access" to student groups seeking to express "religious, political, philosophical, or other content" messages” (Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens by and Through Mergens). Many still argue today that Westside 's prohibition against the Christian club, consistent with the Establishment Clause, makes the Equal Access Act unconstitutional.
The world today has many issues and conflicting arguments. One of the arguments that has caught my attention is whether or not there should be prayer in school. According to Rebecca Klein, with HuffPost Education, in the year of 2014 around 61% of Americans agree with daily prayer in school. While on the other hand, 37% of Americans do not agree with having prayer in school.
In 1951, the following prayer was written that was intended to be recited each morning as part of the regents’ Statement of Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Because the regents made the recitation of the prayer each day entirely optional to the school boards and the individual families of students, many New York school districts shunned the prayer because of their eclectic student bodies. Not only was the state religiously and ethnically diverse, but religious instruction in state schools was declared unconstitutional by the 1948 Supreme Court decision in the McCollum vs. Board of Education case. Because of the constantly increasing controversy about religious teaching in public schools, at least 90% of New York districts were not using the prayer by the late 1950s. Then, in 1958, five parents (of varying religions and ethnicities) of students within the district filed a lawsuit to stop the use of the prayer in their schools.
A public school is a government institution. The government and government institutions are unable to endorse a religion as it is a violation of church and state. Therefore, public schools are unable to have school officiated or led prayer, as that endorses religion. There are also laws against prayer in schools. School prayer is illegal, so having a school officiated prayer can lead to fines and other litigation.
If a teacher organizes a religious activity, and a student’s personal religion isn’t involved, they are going to believe that their religion isn’t a priority, and that they aren’t a priority in the school. This could also make their parent’s angry, and when their parents are angry, they will try and challenge the school by either protests or a lawsuit, which are both distracting to the students and cost money to the school. The most important function of a school is to educate students and to help make them feel accepted, and both functions of a school can be disrupted if religious activities are allowed in public schools. It could disrupt the students’ studies, and not including a student’s religion can make them feel unaccepted. Religious activities, such as prayer, that promote the beliefs of one religion shouldn’t be sponsored, organized, or encouraged by school personnel because it is unconstitutional and violates the religious beliefs of students from different religions.
Court decisions such as these have crossed between enforcing neutrality and imposing on freedom. Neutrality has even affected schools’ curriculum itself. The rulings state: “Schools may not teach creationism, ‘creation science’ or other religiously based concepts in science classes. Schools may not refuse to teach evolutionary theory in order to avoid giving offense to religion” (Americans 3). The restriction on prayer also means forbidding controversial topics involving religion, which limits opportunities for debates and other educational experiences.
Prayer is Powerful Should first amendment rights in America be defended? In many schools around the country, Prayer has already been banned. The American society consists a variety of different religions and the freedom of religion guaranteed to them under the first Amendment of the United States Constitution. Our generation struggles through so much in the school systems and behind closed doors of our homes. They tend to seek the wrong attention from the wrong crowd of people that can harm and hurt our lives.