|
Court Cases Relating to the Issue of Education and Religion
In 1962, (Engel v.
Vitale) the Supreme Court said it did not matter if it was voluntary,
students could not pray together during school, in the way they had
for over 200 years. In 1980, (Stone v.
Graham) the Supreme Court said that the Ten Commandments could not be
on the wall at school, because the students might "read... and
obey" the Ten Comandmments. In 1985, (Wallace v.
Jaffree) the Supreme Court said even a moment of silence was wrong,
because students would use that time to pray silently. In 1992, (Lee v. Weisman)
the Supreme Court said a rabbi broke the law by offering prayer at a
public school graduation ceremony. STONE v. GRAHAM, 449
U.S. 39 (1980), Held that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of
a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions,
on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular
legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the state legislature
required the notation in small print at the bottom of each display that
"[t]he secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen
in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization
and the Common Law of the United States," such an "avowed"
secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment.
The pre-eminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not
confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious
in nature, and the posting serves no constitutional educational function. Wallace v. Jaffree,
472 U.S. 38 (1985) (USSC+) Section 16-1-20.1 (A law passed by the Alabama
legislature in 1981 "authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in
all public schools for meditation or voluntary prayer") is a law
respecting the establishment of religion, and thus violates the First
Amendment. WIDMAR v. VINCENT,
454 U.S. 263 (1981) The University of Missouri at Kansas City, a state
university, makes its facilities generally available for the activities
of registered student groups. A registered student religious group that
had previously received permission to conduct its meetings in University
facilities was informed that it could no longer do so because of a University
regulation prohibiting the use of University buildings or grounds "for
purposes of religious worship or religious teaching." Members of
the group then brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging that
the regulation violated, inter alia, their rights to free exercise ************************* SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES
No. 95-2074 CITY OF BOERNE,
PETITIONER v. P. F. FLORES, ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ANTONIO, AND
UNITED
STATES ON WRIT
OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 1997] Justice Kennedy delivered
the opinion of the Court.* A decision by local zoning
authorities to deny a church a building permit was challenged under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 |
