The Wall, "The Supreme Court, Religion and Public Schools"

Summary

In 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

00:00

📜 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.

05:00

🏛️ 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.

10:02

📚 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.

15:05

🏈 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.

Keywords

💡Establishment Clause

The Establishment Clause is a part of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from making any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' In the context of the video, it is central to the discussion of how the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause in relation to schools and religious activities. The video discusses various Supreme Court cases that have shaped the understanding of the Establishment Clause, such as its application to school prayer and religious symbols in public schools.

💡First Amendment

The First Amendment is the first section of the United States Bill of Rights, which protects the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The video focuses on the religion aspect of the First Amendment, specifically the Establishment Clause and how it impacts the relationship between religion and public schools. The script mentions how the Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to determine what is permissible in schools regarding religious expression.

💡Supreme Court cases

The video script references numerous Supreme Court cases that have shaped the interpretation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Each case is a legal precedent that helps define the boundaries of religious expression in public schools. For example, 'Everson v. Ewing Township' is mentioned as a landmark case that upheld the use of public funds for transportation to religious schools, setting a precedent for future cases.

💡Free Exercise Clause

The Free Exercise Clause is another part of the First Amendment that prohibits the government from interfering with an individual's free exercise of religion. The video discusses how this clause interacts with the Establishment Clause, particularly in the context of public schools. The script gives an example of 'West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette', where the court upheld students' rights not to be coerced into saluting the flag on religious grounds.

💡Selective incorporation

Selective incorporation is a legal doctrine by which the Supreme Court has applied certain provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The video explains how the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause have been selectively incorporated, meaning that states cannot violate these rights any more than the federal government can. This concept is crucial for understanding how the Supreme Court cases impact state and local policies in schools.

💡Lemon test

The Lemon test is a legal test used by the Supreme Court to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause. It has three prongs: the government's action must have a secular purpose, its primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. The video script mentions the 'Lemon v. Kurtzman' case, which established this test, and how it is used to evaluate the constitutionality of laws involving religion in public schools.

💡Wall of separation

The phrase 'wall of separation' between church and state comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson and is often used to describe the principle that the government should not interfere with religious matters. Although not part of the Constitution, it is a concept that has influenced the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The video script references this metaphor to explain the intended boundary between government and religious institutions.

💡Coercion

In the context of the Establishment Clause, coercion refers to the government's imposition of religious practices or beliefs on individuals, which is generally considered unconstitutional. The video discusses how certain practices in schools, like mandatory prayer, can be seen as coercive and therefore violate the Establishment Clause. The script uses the example of 'Engel v. Vitale', where a state-sponsored prayer was deemed coercive and unconstitutional.

💡Entanglement

Excessive entanglement is one of the prongs of the Lemon test and refers to the situation where government involvement with religious institutions becomes too intertwined, potentially leading to favoritism or undue influence. The video explains how cases like 'Everson v. Ewing Township' and 'Lemon v. Kurtzman' have considered whether government actions create an excessive entanglement with religion, which would be unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.

💡Due Process

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the government must respect the rights of citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution. The video script mentions how the Supreme Court uses the Due Process Clause to extend the protections of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause to state and local governments, ensuring that they do not violate these rights in public schools.

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