The Wall, "The Supreme Court, Religion and Public Schools"
Summary
TLDRIn this educational video, the host explores the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its application to schools through various Supreme Court cases. Key cases like Everson, Engel, and Lemon are discussed, illustrating the ongoing struggle to balance religious expression rights with the separation of church and state. The video also covers the Lemon Test, which serves as a guideline for evaluating the constitutionality of laws involving religion. The host encourages viewers to engage in the conversation by sharing their thoughts on the topic.
Takeaways
- 📜 The script discusses the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its application to schools, focusing on Supreme Court cases that interpret the boundary between religion and state in educational settings.
- ✍️ The phrase 'separation of church and state' originates from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, although it's not part of the Constitution itself, it's a guiding principle in interpreting the Establishment Clause.
- 🏫 The script outlines several Supreme Court cases starting from the 1940s, each contributing to the evolving interpretation of the Establishment Clause in relation to schools.
- 🙌 The West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette case established that students cannot be forced to salute the flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance against their religious beliefs.
- 🚌 In Everson vs. Ewing Township, the Supreme Court upheld the use of tax money for transportation to private schools, marking an early instance of selective incorporation of the Establishment Clause.
- 🏛️ McCollum vs. Board of Education was pivotal in ruling that allowing religious instruction in public schools violated the Establishment Clause due to excessive government endorsement of religion.
- 🙏 Engel vs. Vitale is a landmark case that struck down state-sponsored prayer in schools, emphasizing that such practices coerce students into religious activities.
- 📚 The Epperson vs. Arkansas case prohibited states from banning the teaching of evolution in schools based on religious beliefs, upholding the principle of secular education.
- 🍋 The Lemon test, established in Lemon vs. Kurtzman, provides a three-pronged test to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause by evaluating its secular purpose, whether it advances or inhibits religion, and if it causes excessive entanglement between government and religion.
- 📚 The script also covers more recent cases that further clarify the application of the Establishment Clause, such as the allowance of student-led religious clubs in schools as long as they are not state-sponsored or coercive.
Q & A
What is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
-The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' which means the government cannot favor or support one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
What is the significance of the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state'?
-The phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It signifies the principle that the government should not interfere with religious matters, although it is not part of the Constitution itself.
How does the Supreme Court interpret the Establishment Clause in relation to schools?
-The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause in relation to schools through various cases, ensuring that schools do not endorse or inhibit any religion, and maintaining a separation between government and religious institutions.
What was the outcome of the West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett case?
-In the West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett case, the Supreme Court ruled that students could not be coerced into saying the Pledge of Allegiance, upholding the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
What is the 'Lemon Test' and how does it apply to cases involving religion in schools?
-The 'Lemon Test' is a set of guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause. It requires that a law must have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and not create excessive entanglement between government and religion.
What was the Supreme Court's decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding state-sponsored prayer in schools?
-In Engel v. Vitale, the Supreme Court ruled that state-sponsored prayer in public schools was unconstitutional, stating that it violated the Establishment Clause by coercing students to participate in religious activities.
How does the Fourteenth Amendment relate to the Establishment Clause?
-The Fourteenth Amendment, through its Equal Protection Clause, allows the Supreme Court to apply the Establishment Clause to state and local governments, not just the federal government, ensuring that all citizens are protected from religious establishment by any level of government.
What was the issue in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, and what was the Supreme Court's stance?
-In Edwards v. Aguillard, the issue was whether a Louisiana law requiring schools to teach creationism alongside evolution was constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled it was not, stating that the law was an attempt to advance a religious belief and thus violated the Establishment Clause.
Can students form religious clubs in public schools, and if so, under what conditions?
-Yes, students can form religious clubs in public schools, as long as the clubs are student-led, do not receive direct financial support from the school for religious activities, and the school does not endorse or inhibit the club's religious activities.
What was the Supreme Court's decision in Lee v. Weisman, and what does it imply for religious activities in public schools?
-In Lee v. Weisman, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to have clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies. This implies that public schools cannot endorse or appear to endorse religious activities, even if they are student-initiated.
Outlines
📜 Introduction to the Establishment Clause
This paragraph introduces the topic of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its application to schools. It mentions the importance of understanding Supreme Court cases related to religious expression in schools. The script highlights the distinction between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, emphasizing the Supreme Court's interpretation since the 1940s. It also discusses the origin of the 'wall between church and state' metaphor from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, although this phrase is not found in the Constitution itself. The paragraph sets the stage for a deeper dive into specific court cases that have shaped the understanding of these clauses.
🏛️ Landmark Supreme Court Cases on School and Religion
The paragraph delves into several key Supreme Court cases that have influenced the interpretation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause in the context of schools. It starts with West Virginia Board of Education versus Barnett (1943), which addressed the right of students not to be coerced into saying the Pledge of Allegiance. It then discusses Everson vs. Ewing Township (1947), which involved the use of tax money for transportation to private schools. The paragraph also covers McCollum vs. Board of Education (1948), which dealt with religious instruction in public schools, and the concept of 'excessive entanglement' between church and state. It mentions how the 14th Amendment extends the reach of these clauses to state actions, not just federal ones. The paragraph provides a historical overview of the legal battles surrounding religious expression in educational settings.
📚 The Lemon Test and its Impact on School-Religion Cases
This section introduces the Lemon Test, established in the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman (1971), which provides a three-part criteria to determine if a law violates the Establishment Clause. The test asks whether the law has a secular purpose, whether its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and whether it creates excessive entanglement between government and religion. The paragraph discusses how this test has been applied in subsequent cases, such as Wisconsin vs. Yoder (1972), which allowed the Amish to not send their children to school beyond the eighth grade due to religious beliefs. It also touches on Stone vs. Graham (1980), which dealt with the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, and Wallace vs. Jaffree (1985), which struck down an Alabama law establishing a moment of silence in schools, illustrating the ongoing legal debate over the presence of religion in public education.
🏈 Religion in Extracurricular Activities and School Events
The final paragraph addresses more recent cases involving religion in public schools. It discusses the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens (1990), which allowed student-led religious clubs in schools, as long as they were voluntary and did not receive preferential treatment. It also mentions Lee vs. Weissman (1992), which prohibited religious figures from delivering speeches at graduation ceremonies, to avoid coercing students into religious observance. The paragraph also covers Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe (2000), which stopped student-led prayers at football games, and Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris (2002), which upheld the use of vouchers for religious schools, as long as there was no direct endorsement or advancement of a particular religion. The script concludes by encouraging viewers to share their thoughts on the topic and reminding them to subscribe for more educational content.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Establishment Clause
💡First Amendment
💡Supreme Court cases
💡Free Exercise Clause
💡Selective incorporation
💡Lemon test
💡Wall of separation
💡Coercion
💡Entanglement
💡Due Process
Highlights
Introduction to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and its application to schools.
Explanation of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause since the 1940s.
Clarification that the phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the Constitution but comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson.
Discussion of the role of the Fourteenth Amendment in incorporating Establishment Clause issues at the state level.
Case analysis of West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, focusing on the Free Exercise Clause.
Everson vs. Ewing Township case and its impact on the interpretation of government funding for religious schools.
McCollum vs. Board of Education and the court's stance on religious instruction in public schools.
Jacques vs. Clauson and the allowance of release time for religious activities.
Engel vs. Vitale and the court's decision on state-sponsored prayer in schools.
Epperson vs. Arkansas and the prohibition of teaching creationism in public schools.
Introduction of the Lemon Test in Lemon vs. Kurtzman to evaluate the constitutionality of laws concerning religion.
Wisconsin vs. Yoder and the court's decision on Amish children's education beyond the eighth grade.
Stone vs. Graham and the court's ruling on the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools.
Wallace vs. Jaffree and the court's stance on moments of silence for prayer in schools.
Edwards vs. Aguillard and the court's decision on teaching creationism alongside evolution.
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens and the allowance of student-led religious clubs.
Lee vs. Weismann and the court's ruling on religious speeches at graduation ceremonies.
Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Doe and the court's decision on student-led prayers at football games.
Zelman vs. Simmons-Harris and the court's stance on school vouchers for religious schools.
Discussion on current controversies such as religious symbols in schools and the Lemon Test's application.
Transcripts
hey guys welcome to hip Hughes history
we're gonna take a look at the
Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment today and how it applies to
schools there's a number of Supreme
Court cases that you're gonna want to
know about whether you're an AP
government course or whether you just
sit in school wondering it maybe you're
one of those cray-cray on the internet
people I don't care
giddyup for the learning let's get it
done right Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
those are the words kitties and the
Supreme Court has been dealing with
those words really since the 1940s as
that applies to what schools can do and
what students have in terms of free
expression rights in their schools
dealing with religious issues so we're
gonna take a look at those court cases
but you would notice that I didn't say
anything about church and state because
it's not in the Amendment and before we
move on because the Supreme Court's
going to point to Jefferson's words its
Thomas Jefferson in the letter to the
Danbury Baptist Association in 1802
where he writes about really religion
being a relationship between man and God
and that government really has no
business in it and then he goes on to
say that really the true spirit of the
Establishment Clause is to build a wall
between church and state so that's where
that language comes from comes from the
founding father himself but it's not in
the Constitution so here we go guys
let's break it up a little bit and take
a look at the important court cases that
you come
who dive into these cases it's important
to realize that these are all court
cases that are utilizing not just the
First Amendment and again we're breaking
this up into the Establishment Clause
respecting the establishment of religion
and the Free Exercise Clause and the
free exercise thereof so there's kind of
two different variables that are going
into the pot here but the other
important variable is going to be the
Fourteenth Amendment no state shall deny
its citizens life liberty or due process
that's the kind of the hook that brings
in the states into this fold because
without the 14th amendment it would
purely be a federal viewpoint we'd only
be looking at actions taken by the
United States federal government but
because of the 14th amendment the courts
going to be selectively incorporating
kind of these issues with the 14th
amendment under the umbrella of the
Establishment Clause the free exercise
clause that's a lot of words they're
kitties so let's take a look at some
court cases the first court case is
actually not purely religion but in 1943
we have West Virginia Board of Education
versus Barnett and this really is the
free exercise portion of that language
when it's talking about whether students
have the right not to be coerced into
saying the Pledge of Allegiance or
putting their hand over their heart or
saluting so while not religious in
nature purely it was brought forth by
Jehovah Witnesses who are using this
Free Exercise Clause argument to say you
can't make us do this it's violating my
free exercise of my religion and the
court agrees and that's why it's a
voluntary kind of thing so if your
school is telling you you have to say it
I don't want to get you in trouble
Johnny but you wouldn't get in trouble
at the end of the day because the
Constitution is on your side now the
first selective incorporation case when
it comes to the Establishment Clause and
you want to write this one down this is
a big one is going to be Everson Board
of Education versus Ewing Township 1947
and this is a court case that deals with
New Jersey that is using the money tax
money that's coming in to basically use
for transportation to private schools
and the taxpayers are saying well whoa
wait a minute you're taking my money
this is government money and you're
spending it on this kind of religious
endeavor that's Establishment Clause and
while the court doesn't agree the courts
going to uphold this law they're going
to say that you know the purpose of the
law has nothing to do with religion it's
just kind of a consequence of the law
they are in a
there is a wall between church and state
it's just that the wall doesn't cover
this one activity but that's going to
change quite quickly it's going to
change in 1948 where we have McCallum
versus Board of Education and McCallum
is the first instance where the courts
going to say yeah you kind of hit the
wall there baby and what we have is
basically Illinois which is allowing in
their public schools for religious
people to come in during the day and
basically to provide religious
instruction so while the state's not
providing it they're inviting them in
they're giving them the class space and
the students are receiving this
instruction and the court says that
violates the Establishment Clause
there's just too much endorsement of
religion when you go to a specific
religious group and you invite them into
this public sphere so they're going to
knock that down and then in 1952 in New
York City there's a Jacque versus
Clawson where New York kind of got
around that by saying well we'll just
have kind of a release day so if you
have a special religious holiday we'll
give you an exemption they can take
attendance as you leave the building and
go to your church or synagogue or
whatever it might be and in that court
case using this kind of you know test of
whether or not the government's
endorsing religion Establishment Clause
the court says no that's okay so all of
these court cases are kind of trying to
find that that that height of where that
wall between church and state is and you
can see that it's kind of going up and
down as we go through these different
court cases but here's the big one and
this is the one that upsets a lot of
people it's probably the most famous
court case that means it's going to test
children and that's angle versus Vitali
1960 to write it down if you're cheating
write it on your hand do whatever kids
do but this is the big guy and it's
actually New York and there's 10
families that have come together that
are protesting what is basically a
state-sponsored prayer in New York where
New York would write a supposedly
nondenominational prayer that would say
something to the effect of you know our
Heavenly Father bless us or something
that is kind of not very religious
specific but it's specific enough that
the courts going to knock it down the
courts going to say that you know this
is coercion that you're basically saying
that we're gonna tell you when to pray
and what to say and you have to do it or
at least you're being made that you have
to feel you have to do it maybe you're
five years old you're not going to be
like I ain't saying the prayer man
where's my lawyer so the court says
that's going to kind of violate that
that wall it's just too much you know
the school having you know devotional
religious exercises that's not the place
that's the place for you know the
private sphere not the public sphere now
the last case in the 1960s before we hit
a big one we're going to get to that in
a second it's going to be a person
versus Arkansas and what Arkansas
basically did is they passed the law
which forbade the teaching of evolution
ain't going to touch the evolution
anymore ooh and there's basically people
going that's you know a religious
decision you're not making your
curriculum guidelines based on science
and education you're basically saying
this is my religious point of view and
we have enough people in the state
democratically who believe in it so we
want you to teach that way the court
says that's an endorsement of a
religious belief
that's not secular that's not non down
in the national you have a purpose here
and we ain't going to let you do it so
they get to teach about the monkeys so
there you go guys those are the court
cases that are before the lemon test and
right about now you're like mr. Hughes
what's the lemon test come here and
learn a lesson from that of the lemon
free my son it's mostly so if you're
cheating its lemon first Kurtzman 1971
and this is the court case that's going
to create the famous lemon test that has
nothing to do with used automobiles but
it is used to test whether or not a
state action is violating that wall
between church and state so basically we
have Rhode Island and Pennsylvania that
have crafted a school system where Rhode
Island is paying private school teachers
religious instructors directly out of
their state funds and Pennsylvania is
reimbursing private schools for teacher
salaries transportation costs textbooks
things like that and basically we're
testing whether or not this violates you
know the Establishment Clause have
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island gone too
far the court basically says yes you
have gone too far but before I tell you
why you went too
for let's set up some guidelines so we
have something to use in the future so
we don't have to keep having a million
court cases so they say this is what
we're going to do in the future if we
have some kind of you know school rule
or state law we're going to say number
one is the purpose of this legislative
act secular are we if they're trying to
pass a law that's trying to say you know
Christianity is the best where Buddhism
is the baby
I make no sense that's not secular so
number one is it's secular and they say
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island it was a
secular law it wasn't trying to you know
really do anything for these religious
institutions other other than reimburse
them with state money and the number two
it says is this legislative act either
inhibiting or advancing religion and
they say we're not going to get into
this but in the future we're a look at
that if we can tell that you're trying
to advance Judaism or you're trying to
say
Buddhists beware you're not going to be
able to do that but this is the one that
Pennsylvania and Rhode Island violated
that we're going to put in the lemon
test it's excessive entanglement you
know we don't want the state this is
what the court says we don't want the
state kind of having its hands all
inside the church working with each
other because it's just too political
and there's just too much kind of
history in the United States that we
don't want to develop into that type of
society so yes it does violate that but
that's the Lemon test is it secular
advanced or inhibit is there excessive
entanglement and now there's a few court
cases we're going to look at really
quick until we get to the 1990s and the
first one is a Free Exercise Clause case
and this is Wisconsin versus Yoder
this is 1972 and this has to do with the
Amish that are saying it's part of our
religious belief that we don't think
that children should have to go to
school after eighth grade we want to put
them to work we want to keep them home
in the state says whoa we have a very
legitimate state purpose here we need an
educated citizenry you got to go to
school and the court says no this is
where it really gets kind of you know
controversial but at the end of the day
this is the most important thing to
these people is their religion in it's a
religious belief it's their free
exercise and we're not going to take
away their free exercise of their
religion so if you're Amish
eighth grade you don't got to go anymore
stone versus Graham Kentucky 1980 and
what they did in Kentucky is they passed
a law putting up the Ten Commandments in
all the schools and there's a number of
students a number of families who are
offended by this and go to the court and
say you can't do that and the district
is saying look it's just an historical
document we're just putting this up it's
part of our history you know the ten
commandments and kind of where our
civilization came from and what the
court says is that's not going to fly
you're trying to advance Christianity
you're not putting up you know all the
other religious documents you chose that
one because you believe that one's the
best and you want all the kids to know
about it it's not a curricular thing
it's a religious thing the ten
commandments are not supposed to be
posted in public schools we have wallace
verse Jeffrey's in nineteen eighty five
basically Alabama is kind of trying to
get a round angle they want school
prayer real bad so the court was
allowing moments of meditation if
someone passed away one of the moments
of silence that kind of thing was okay
what Alabama did was they passed a
legislative act that said we're going to
add a meditation moment of silence or
prayer they want prayer they want it in
there and the court says we know what
you're trying to do you're trying to get
prayer in there and prayer is just too
religious it's too controversial it goes
you know over that wall we don't want it
to so we're going to knock that down and
Alabama's law was struck down and then
in 1987 we have a court case which is
Edwards versus a guard and this is
Louisiana trying to get around a person
if you remember a person I was like you
can't teach evolution well the court
said yeah you're going to teach
evolution
so what Louisiana did it said well okay
then if you're going to teach evolution
you're going to teach creationism they
pass the creationism Act which said you
had to teach creationism as a viable
option if you were going to teach
evolution which we disagree with and the
court said again this is not a secular
law this is a religious law and you're
trying to advance a certain religious
concept you're not allowed to do that
Louisiana so it's a no-go now we're
going to get into the 1990s and then
we're going to be done
so in 1990 we get a huge court case it's
called Board of Education of Westside
Community School versus merchants and
what was going on here was the students
came together and they decided that they
wanted to have a religious Club they
wanted a Bible Club so they started
their Bible Club somebody complained and
we're going to the court baby can
students have religious clubs political
clubs even and when the court says is
yes with a caveat with a little
exclamation point not an exclamation and
Ashley and here are the rules basically
number one it has to be student-led this
can't be a faculty endeavor the students
have to come together on their own this
is Free Exercise Clause if the school
administration and the teachers are
putting it together it's going to
violate the Establishment Clause this is
a really great court case because it's
showing the balance between the
Establishment Clause and the Free
Exercise Clause and number two it says
you know you can't pay teachers to be
there they have to be there just in a
custodial role they're really not even
supposed to participate they're supposed
to kind of watch and you can't be
bringing all religious people in either
but if students want it and it's not
during school hours and nobody's getting
paid to do it students have that right
but that means if you have a right to
start the Bible Club then you have to
allow all the other clubs and you can't
start picking and choosing out of
popularity because then we get into
advancing and inhibiting religion
so that's Westside that still stands
today that's why there's a lot of
schools that have religious clubs now
1992 Lee versus Weissman can schools
have rabbis or Christian pastors come to
graduation and give speeches even if
they're under guidelines and the court
says no you can't do that because by
doing that even if it's really popular
everybody wants the favorite pastor of
the local Bible School to come in and
give a big speech what you're doing is
you're coercing people you're having
people that don't want to hear that have
to hear that and in a sense you are
picking that religion so it's advancing
that religion and therefore you're not
allowed to do that the next one is going
to be
it's a fait independent school district
versus doe this is year 2000 and this is
a Texas baby and what in Texas they like
is they like the football and they like
God
and they combine those by having student
lead prayer in most school districts and
this is back in you know the late 1990s
where they would basically have an
election where they would nominate
somebody that would be the person with
the chosen religious prayer and then
they'd be given the mic and everybody
would be led in that prayer and
basically what the court says is you're
not allowed to do that you're not
allowed to do that because number one
you're politicizing religion you're
having people vote on religion so does
that mean we only get to hear the
majority religion we only get to advance
that prayer what about the religion that
came in fifth oh no one's ever going to
hear that one and since the school owns
the audio system and they're handing the
mic there in a sense endorsing it's not
secular they're advancing a certain
religious idea and to protect to the
coercion effect from that minority we're
going to knock that down you're not
allowed to do that the last four cases
in 2002 we have Zelman versus Simmons
Harris and this has to do with Cleveland
Cleveland came up with a plan to help
their students and in that plan they
could either receive free extra help
after school they would be able to apply
to go to a magnet school or they'd be
given money a voucher and those vouchers
of course are paid with tax payer
dollars and 97 percent of those vouchers
were being used to their kids to go to
parochial schools religious schools so
the taxpayers near Cleveland are saying
we don't want to pay for someone to go
to you know Bible Camp that's you know
you using my money you're endorsing
religion this is establishment of
religion and the court says would you
just stop it that's not true this is
just free choice you know if they choose
to go and use that voucher at that place
they can go there if you want to start
the school of you know hillbilly temple
sciences and get people to go to your
school with a voucher then good for you
but we're not advancing it we're not
inhibiting anybody from doing that and
we're certainly not you know endorsing
anything so that's where that stands we
can have vouchers going to private
schools and
we're gonna wrap it up certainly there's
a lot of other controversial things that
the court really hasn't come down on yet
like right now if you know you want to
wear a religious symbols some schools
try to classify that under the kind of
gang concept and say you're not allowed
to do that
the lower courts have ruled you have a
right if you want to bring a rose
rosemary beads rosary beads or you want
to wear a big pent or whatever if it
doesn't disturb instruction and they're
not picking and choosing you should be
allowed to do that when it comes to
religious holidays you know the courts
been pretty clear on that from the lower
court standpoint that you're not allowed
to pick the Christmas tree over the you
know I don't know the Kwanzaa trees or
Kwanzaa tree but right now schools
aren't really able to do that because
it's an endorsement it's an advancement
go back to the lemon test now I'm done
so what do you think now is the time for
you to go down and type your opinions
down below because we love comments keep
it civil nice because that's the
American way to do things I'm Johnny
Cash
so guys giddy up for the learn and you
haven't subscribed the hippies history
you can do that but on the red button
there there's like a million videos
there's like a whole bunch we're go to
WWF um where they're all organized which
I'm not very good at so there you go
guys we'll see you next time that you
press my buttons and always remember I
say it every time where tension goes
energy
Oh
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)