Creationism in Public Education: Is Evolution the Only Focus of Public Schools?

Beginning in the year 1968, the first ruling on teaching evolution in classrooms appeared in the United States. In Epperson v. Arkansas the Supreme Court ruled that it was the Arkansas statue prohibiting the teaching of evolution in classroom was unconstitutional. Under the establishment clause, the First Amendment prohibits the teaching and learning that is centered around one particular religion or religious beliefs. If the government allowed such teaching practices, it would be favoring a particular religion, thus inadvertently establishing a religion for the United States.

            From this first case in 1968 until 2005, there have been many court cases ruling in favor of teaching evolution, based on the premise that it would be unconstitutional to prevent it. However, there is one court case that did not have to do with prohibiting the teaching of evolution but rather the teaching of “creation science”. In 1990, in Webster v. New Lenox School District the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science in order to not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The Court stated that the school district was allowed to prohibit him from teaching “creation science” since it is a form of religious advocacy.

            This is different from all of the other cases because it focuses on prohibiting the teaching of creationism rather than evolution. With the cases concerning evolution, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of teaching evolution while this case showed a ruling against “creation science”. As a former public school student, I can say that creationism was not mentioned during any of my science classes.  However, evolution and the theories of Darwin were the focus of one of my entire Biology classes. 

            While the Church believes that it should have “true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among men” it does not state that these teachings must be done through all hours of the day (GS 76). Most of the Church’s stance on Church and State is the believe that the government should not get involved in the Church’s practices, or prohibit its worshipers from exercising their right to practice their faith. The Church also states that, “When authority is so exercised, citizens are bound in conscience to obey” (GS 74). The Church wishes it members to follow the laws of the land, as long as these laws follow their conscience and are for the greater good. Therefore, if the Church is allowed to teach the faith to their worshipers, it should not be required for public school teachers to teach the faith as well.  

Sources:

https://ncse.com/library-resource/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Today

President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on November 16, 1993. This law “ensures that the interests in religious freedom are protected” and to “provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government”. This law was enacted in order to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith where the State denied unemployment benefits to a person who used a drug that was related to religious practices.

            The law hoped to promote the freedom of religion among people and prevent government actions that would violate religious freedoms. However, many states have begun to pass their own versions of the religious liberty law. One state in particular, Indiana, has had more recent coverage in the news because of the potential discrimination by businesses based on their “religious freedom”. A wedding planner refused services to a gay couple based on the premises that it would violate their faith.

            While businesses do reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, refusing service based on discriminatory premises not only sparks feelings of anger and hate, but also divides the community. Gaudium et Spes does promote the “exercise of civil freedom", however, it also states that this exercise of freedom must be “in attainment of the common good” (GS 73). It is one thing to not provide a certain type of service or product due to religion, but to discriminate on who the service or good is provided too does not promote “growing respect for men of other opinions or religions” (GS 73).

            The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act had good intentions, and wanted to promote religious freedoms for all Americans. However, these state level interpretations are making discrimination the basis for this exercising of right rather than actual desires for religious freedom. In the future, state laws should be more carefully enacted in order to promote religious freedoms, not the freedom to use your faith to discriminate against others by.

For more coverage on the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act, clink on the video below. 

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-laws-controversial-cases/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb

http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol9_no2_3/art6.html

Public Funding for Private Education: A Violation of the Establishment Clause?

            In today’s education system, there are many different options for schools that children can attend, including both private and public schools. Among private schools are what to be considered “religious” schools, where students can pay to receive private educations with a focus on the morals and teachings of certain religion. 

            There is currently still a debate as to whether religious schools should be given public funding. Many believe that by providing “Parochiaid”, which is aid for parochial and other non-public elementary and secondary schools, is a violation of the establishment of religion clause. This clause of the first amendment states that, “Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. This clause has also been interpreted to mean that the government must not favor one religion over another, or favor non-religion over religion and vice versa. In the case of Everson v. Board of Education in 1947, the Supreme Court ruled that the establishment of religion clause prohibited any form of parochiaid.

            Canada differs from the United States, as does not have the principle directly establishing a separation between Church and State. The British North American Act gave “legal protection to the rights of denominational schools” (Thiessen 2). This gave Protestant and Roman Catholic schools in some Canadian regions the right to receive public funding for their schools. This does not follow the US establishment clause, where supporting certain religious schools would be considered the government favoring certain religions over others.

            This government involvement in the “establishment” of a certain religion does not follow from what the Church teaches us. In Gadium et Spes, the Vatican states that, “The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other” (GS 76). Therefore, public funding to certain religious schools would be violating the establishment clause and interfere with the teachings of the Church. Some could even say that this “public funding” could lead to certain mandates of the religious schools, thus interfering with the teachings of the Church. While both entities hope to educate the nation's youth in the best manner possible, it would be best if they didn't interfere with the other.

Sources:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

THIESSEN, ELMER JOHN. “Funding of Religious Schools and the Separation of Church and State.” In Defence of Religious Schools and Colleges, McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001, pp. 99–114, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt806p4.10.

How to Maintain Our Christian Identity in an Increasingly Secular Society

          In our increasingly secular society, it can be hard to maintain our Christian identity. Because of the separation of church and state, it can seem like Christian values have no place in a public forum. Gaudium et spes, one of the four constitutions that resulted from the Vatican II council, highlights the importance of holding true to our Christian values in this every-changing society. When it seems like people are constantly trying to make you question your beliefs and turn away from God, that is when it is most important that we ban together to stay strong. The more corruption, violence, and hatred in this world, the more of God’s love we have to bring to it.

            Because of the separation of church and state, there is a constant struggle between staying true to our identity as a Christian and as a citizen. There is a debate over whether our duty as a citizen should come before or after our duty as Christians. Gaudium et spes provides a solution where we can kill two birds with one stone by combining our civic duties and our Christian duties. One way that we can use our citizenship to promote our Christian values is through our right to vote. Gaudium et spes says, “All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good” (75). Through voting, we can complete our civic duty as well as influence the decisions made in this country. Our Catholic values can manifest themselves in the policies that we create and pass in our country. Because of our democracy, we have the power to change things within our government for the good of society. Gaudium et spes continues to tell us that “The Church praises and esteems the work of those who for the good of men devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office” (75). We can even chose to enter directly into the realm which seems to be turning more secular, and work to make changes from the inside.

As Christians we strive to discern our vocation. Gaudium et spes makes it clear that “all Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good”(75).  It is through discerning our own callings from God that we can truly realize where and how we are called bring the light of Christ to others. Through our vocation, we can strive to work for the common good. 

         In this short clip below, Quentin L. Cook gives some more insight into how to bring God’s light to our society through all of the struggles and push-backs that we face every day. He mentions many ways that we can maintain our Christian identity such as building up our families through daily family prayer and staying virtuous in the face of evil. Being honest and treating all others, no matter what their faith or background, as brothers and sisters of Christ is another way we can overcome the consequences of the increasingly secular society in which we live. 

Dialogue Between Christians and non-Christians

Is it right to shoot someone in the head in the middle of dinner because you did not like what they said? Is it alright to sell your daughter because she didn’t listen to you when you said to put her dish in the sink? None of these things any sane person would think were acceptable to do. These truths are not based in religion, they are based in morality. 

You do not have to be Catholic or Christian to have a sense of right and wrong. So why, then, do we think that it is impossible in a political setting for people of faith and people that do not believe in a God to work together? Creating a dialogue between Christians and non-Christians should not be a far-fetched concept, because there has to be a platform that all citizens can agree upon on a universal level.  Since the separation of church and state, society has had to struggle with this concept. Gaudium et Spes, one of the four constitutions from the Second Vatican II council, says that “according to the character of different peoples and their historic development, the political community can..adopt a variety of concrete solutions in its structures and the organization of public authority. For the benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must always contribute to the formation of a type of man who will be cultivated, peace-loving and well-disposed towards all his fellow men”(74). The church establishes that there are many different solutions, and structures that we can use to have a dialogue between people coming from all different backgrounds. Each citizen, no matter where they are in their faith life, can connect and agree upon certain moral truths with other citizens. These moral truths will be based in the betterment of the common good. 

With this as the starting point, the next question is how do Christians begin to maintain and bring forth their religious ideas in a public forum?

In The Dialectics of Secularization, written by Jurgen Habermas, Ratzinger talks about how Christianity needs to be acceptable to the general public. He says, “When secularized citizens act in their roles as citizens of the state, they must not deny in principle that religious images of the world have the potential to express truth. Nor may they refuse their believing fellow citizens the right to make contributions in a religious language to public debates. Indeed, a liberal political culture can expect that the secularized citizens play their part in the endeavors to translate relevant contributions from the religious language into a language that is accessible to the public as a whole”(52). With the increasing number of non-Christians it is important that dialogue is able to take place within the separation of church and state. The basic foundations around equality, human rights, and loving your neighbor as yourself are things that most can agree upon as at least true in the United States, if not universally. We have to find a way that these values will connect with everyone. These values must relate to non-Christians on a deeper level. In order to have a dialogue between two parties, both have to be engaged. In order to convince others in political or public setting of your ideals, you have to connect with them on their level. Christians must find a way to communicate their ideas and connect with the majority in order for real changes to be enacted.

However, this brings up the problem of an unjust majority. How do we start a dialogue when we are talking to a corrupt majority? How do we get our Christian values through, which are important for the common good, if the ones in power are not willing to be open. How do we find a moral foundation that we all can understand if some are not open to change or new opinions? In every discussion, both parties have to at least be open to the possibility of the other being right. The lack of desire to see other’s point of view is what leaves us in this gridlock in relation to inter-religious discussions. 

If we cannot take a few steps back from ourselves and our own opinions to hear the views of others, we will never be able to unite our country. 

Interaction Between the Government and Religious Citizens Under Conditions of Separation of Church and State

In today’s society, the more secular we become, the more of a push there is for separation of church and state. With church and state separated, we begin to question what the role of the state is in relation to those with religious backgrounds. Does this mean the government doesn’t have to pay attention to religious citizens?Does this mean they pretend that they don’t exist, and simply focus on its citizens as if they were all atheists?



Of course not. Guadium et spes, one of the four constitutions that came from the second council of Vatican II highlights how governments should treat religious citizens, and how those same citizens should treat the government.

There are times in our society when groups are persecuted because they have a strong faith in our secular society. Instances such as with the Little Sisters of the poor mentioned in another post by Clare, Christians that don’t feel they can speak up about their religion in a political environment, and many more cases. The separation of church and state can turn into an oppression of those that hold on to their religious beliefs. However, Gaudium et spes clearly states that the separation of church and state does not allow the state under any circumstances to undermine the human rights of all citizens. Gaudium et spes addresses very clearly the purpose of the state in relation to all members of society. It is clear that the church believes that “it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on dictatorial systems or totalitarian methods which violate the rights of the person or social groups”(75). The government needs to be there for all people, no matter their race or religion. The government is established to defend and protect the citizens. Gudium et spes says, “The rights of all persons, families and groups, and their practical application, must be recognized, respected and furthered, together with the duties binding on all citizen… Rulers must be careful not to hamper the development of family, social or cultural groups, nor that of intermediate bodies or organizations, and not to deprive them of opportunities for legitimate and constructive activity; they should willingly seek rather to promote the orderly pursuit of such activity”(75).

If this is not the case, and the government does not uphold these standards, especially in our democracy, individuals should stand up for their rights if they are under attack. They church also tell of how individuals should respond to potential oppression. Gaudium et spes says, “but where citizens are oppressed by a public authority overstepping its competence, they should not protest against those things which are objectively required for the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority, while keeping within those limits drawn by the natural law and the Gospels”(74). The church holds that we should not protest against the things which would benefit the majority, only protesting against those things truly harmful to the liberties of ourselves or others. 

Demanding from the government things that only benefit our own self-interests is not beneficial to the common good. That means we need to work together with our government, supporting them unless our rights are infringed upon. We also need to “cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded. This means that they will always direct their attention to the good of the whole human family, united by the different ties which bind together races, people and nations”(75). As Christians, we need to not ban against the separation of church and state, but fight for our country and our fellow citizens. We have to focus on bringing the country together rather than tearing it apart. 

America: Founded for Religious Freedoms

We all know the story of Thanksgiving; Once upon a time, a group of Pilgrims landed in Plymouth Massachusetts and made friends with the local Native Americans and they feasted. And thus, the pilgrims were able to survive the winter with the help of their new friends and they all lived happily ever after (yeah, sure).

But, especially since Thanksgiving is soon approaching, there is a huge chunk of this story we often forget. Why were the Pilgrims in Plymouth in the first place? Let's remember: the Pilgrims were a group of Separatist Puritans on the run from religious discrimination in England. One of the very first settlements in America was founded for religious purposes. And it wasn't alone: Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams for religious freedom, along with Thomas Hooker in Connecticut. The state of Maryland was founded by Lord Baltimore for the sole purpose of giving Catholics a place to live (thus Mary-land, after good ol' Mama Mary).

Religious freedom is a HUGE part of America's identity, to this day. Our money is labeled with "one nation under God", most schools have off for religious holidays, and we have an entire Amendment dedicated to upholding religious freedoms. However, we also love the phrase "Separation of Church and State". In a country that is SO rooted in religious freedoms, will this ever be possible?

There are some who believe no; Republican Presidential Nominees such as Ted Cruz brought their Christianity into their speeches and future plans.

(although Cardinal Timothy Dolan may disagree)

There are some who say yes; In the abortion argument, many Pro-Life-ers bring in religious arguments, to which Pro-Choice-ers remind them that the government should not be making laws based on religion.

But at the end of the day, one thing is clear: America was founded, at least in part, for religious freedom. Can a country founded in such a way really strip itself of its identity? Only time will tell. For now, it seems like the division between Church and State is getting wider, for better or for worse.

Van Orden v. Perry

Insight into the Intricacy of the Separation of Church and State in America

by Matt Suhosky

http://kelseymariebaker.blogspot.com/2012/03/blog-4-van-orden-v-perry.html

    The separation of church and state in the United States is guaranteed in the First Amendment of our Constitution through the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from passing a law "respecting an establishment of religion." This is the only mention of the separation of religion and the government in the Constitution, leaving such a separation somewhat ambiguous.

    Such ambiguity has caused dozens of citizens and activist groups to sue their governments, whether it be local, state, or federal. Cases regarding the Establishment Clause that have gone to the Supreme Court range from the federal government subsidizing secular textbooks to parochial schools, to the allotment of time for prayer in public schools, to a prayer led by a rabbi at a public high school's graduation.

    One case in particular demonstrates the ambiguity of the Establishment Clause. On the grounds of the Texas State Capitol sat a large granite monument reading the Ten Commandments. In 2003, Thomas Van Orden sued Rick Perry, in his capacity as Governor of Texas, on the grounds that the display of such a religious symbol on government property was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

    Van Orden argued that the placement of such a monument on state grounds seems as a government endorsement of religion, and in this case in particular, Christianity. In opposition, Perry argued that the placement of the monument had a secular purpose and the messages of the Ten Commandments were deeply rooted in our nation's history. Issues such as whether or not tax dollars were used to fund the monument, the maintenance of the monument, and the donation of the monument from an independent organization were all debated throughout the case. Seeing the importance of these issues in the debate over the constitutionality of the monument, it is clear how complicated and vague the Establishment Clause is in its interpretation of the separation of church and state.

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Texas, thereby upholding the placement of the Ten Commandments on the state capitol's ground. The Court agreed with Perry's reasoning in the historical and secular message of the monument, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist writing "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause."

    Though Gaudium et Spes does maintain that the roles of the church and the state be isolated, the document also states the Church "contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation," and that the Church should have the right "to pass moral judgement in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of soul require it." The Church's teaching in Gaudium is certainly consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Van Orden v. Perry. Though religion and the state are separate entities, the teachings and morals of religion have and continue to play an essential role in the foundation and the continuation of a just and noble state. 

The Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds, the focus of Van Orden v. Perry

http://web.law.duke.edu/voices/gallery?id=170&pil=2

Sources:

1.     https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1500.ZO.html

2.     http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/quick-look-at-van-orden-v-perry-mccreary-county-v-aclu

3.     https://www.quimbee.com/cases/van-orden-v-perry

4.     http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html