Wisconsin v. Yoder is the case in which members of an old order Amish family were restricted from removing their children from school after completing the 8th grade. These families argued that the states compulsory educational law violated their right to exercise their religion freely. The Amish lead a simple way of life and higher education is not only deemed unnecessary but also endangers their traditional values. They believe that the values their children will learn at home outweigh the knowledge they will receive at school. The US Supreme Court concluded that the states compulsory education law did violate the Amish peoples right to exercise their religion freely. Wisconsin V. Yoder is a controversial case of a law coming into conflict with a constitutional right. The question whether the US Supreme Court was right in its verdict comprises a multidimensional answer and therefore requires further sub questions. Do religious beliefs trump certain laws? What type of law is it? What are the implications of the US Supreme Courts decision? In this paper I argue that religious accommodation has dire consequences that lead to corruption and inequality, however the US Supreme Court was correct in its decision to accommodate the Amish family due to the inherent flaw with the paternalistic law that the state of Wisconsin was trying to enforce.
It is crucial to recognize the critiques of this religious accommodation to fully understand its implications. The states interest in educating every child is a legitimate one as education leads to effective and intellectual participation in the open political system which otherwise would be compromised. Education also ensures that the child becomes a self-reliant and self-sufficient membe...
... middle of paper ...
...ild and the family of that child, while no harm would be done on the rest of society. Moreover, the opposite can also be taken into account, as the consequence of compelling the children to stay in school would harm the family of that child along with the Amish community as a whole. It is in the interest of the parents to decide how they wish to educate their child, and therefore no state or individual should interfere.
In conclusion, religious belief is not a justifiable reason for excuse or accommodation from a law, as the consequences undermine the principles of a democratic state. At the same time I believe the US Supreme Court was right in its decision to accommodate the Amish family not due to religious beliefs but rather due to the flaw with the current law. A more appropriate action, in my opinion, would be if the Supreme Court nullified the law completely.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
According to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though last in the Bill of Rights, it is one of the most powerful and ever changing in interpretation over the course of America’s history. Some historical events that altered its meaning include the Civil War, The Civil Right’s Movement, and even modern event’s like the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. In this paper I will discuss how the Tenth amendment has a large effect in both America’s history, but also how it is now portrayed America’s present.
Rieff, Burt. "Conflicting Rights and Religious Liberty: The School-Prayer Controversy in Alabama, 1962-1985." Alabama Review 3(2001):163. eLibrary. Web. 31 Aug. 2011.
Throughout this term I learned so much about young children, anti-bias education, developmental growth and so much more. Education is something that shouldn’t be taken lightly; these are development steps of a young child that could help determine their future. Children need to be guided emotionally, academically, mentally and emotionally. Parents teach their children practices and their beliefs to help the child get ready for the world. Parents and teacher should always be involved in a child's learning process, despite of their values or beliefs. Everyone cultures are different, and how they expect their children to behave is different too. As adults, and teachers, we can’t have a set mindset on what we only believe in because, there is always
Education Week talks about the freedom and practice of religion stated in the United States Constitution and how the government has altered that in their article, “Religion in Schools”. They touch base on how “under God” was taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance and elaborate how students can participate in religious clubs outside of school because of the placement of the federal Equal Access Act of 1984.
The assumptions that everyone can learn, and that schools have the potential to transform a country with a tradition of hatred and an unequal distribution of wealth, extend from the vision of education as a democratic practice where there is "a struggle for both change and the freedom to change" (Irwin, p. 51, 1991). The change is about transforming an exclusive, often oppressive and disempowering system into a more inclusive, equal, and equitable one that is accessible to children from ...
As the case in Illinois clearly demonstrates, concerns about the fundamental discrepancy between a government's authority and what that government's authority guarantees are still being resolved. Cases like Tinker still have meaning and relevance to the situations of today, but at the same time, the lesson of Slotterback and innumerable other cases is that precedent can be defied, that every new generation requires a new interpretation of the provisions and guarantees made in grand terms vague enough to allow just such reinterpretation. History shows that censorship can be unfolded into either prior restraint or public forum, the approach from liberty or the approach from authority. Judicial sympathies have swung from one to the other with some regularity. With an issue as contentious as this, we can safely expect they will continue to do so.
First Amendment issues of the separation of church and state and state establishment of religion have long been litigated in the federal courts. Until recently, the Supreme Court had a consistent track record of preventing the intermingling of religion and government, especially when it came to the nation's public schools. Yet this past year, a newly activist conservative court has set about rewriting some of the Warren Court's judicial legacy. In the 1995 case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, declared that the University of Virginia was constitutionally required to subsidize a student religious magazine on the same basis as secular publications and activities. This decision opens the door to greater government financial support for religious organizations. Groups like the Christian Coalition and the American Center for Law and Justice, the legal wing of Pat Robertson's financial empire, saw this narrow decision as a victory for their agenda of weaving together government and religion, thus tearing down the wall of separation between church and state, To justify their pursuits, they site the need for moral leadership in this country, which many view as ethically and morally rudderless. Yet Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, and other similarly thinking individuals and groups are promoting an agenda more far reaching than their mainstream supporters have in mind. The move to infuse government with a greater religious presence has almost nothing to do with instilling traditional values and morality, and almost everything to do establishing Christianity, specifically evangelical Christianity, as the state religion. ...
In her article “Beyond the Wall of Separation: Church-State in Public Schools”, Martha McCarthy, a Chancellor Professor and chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, makes it clear that her aim is to inform educators of the legal history and constitutional precedents of the Establishment clause and Free speech Clause of the First Amendment with an attached understanding of how educators should implement these findings. She summarizes and analyzes key Supreme Court rulings over the course of the 20th century as they pertain to religious expression in public schools. She clarifies the usage of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause, including recent changes in trends that have been noted in the Supreme Court during the last decade. From the late 1940’s to the 1990’s most Supreme court rulings focused on the Establishment Clause to the increasing exclusion of the Free Speech Clause such that students were increasingly limited in the ways they were allowed to express themselves in school even in a private manner. In recent years, however, it has been noted that forcing students to suppress their religious expression is itself a religious statement and one that denies the role of religion in people’s lives. McCarthy notes that the public schools must take a neutral stand in relation to religion such that they do not defend or deny its role in people’s lives, either directly or indirectly.
Education has always been in existence in one form or another. As each child is born into this world regardless of who or where they are born, life lessons immediately begin. He/she will learn to crawl, walk, and talk by the example and encouragement of others. Although these lessons are basic in the beginning they evolve as the child grows. However, the core learning method of a child does not change. Learning from others, they will watch, listen, and then act for themselves. Thomas Jefferson believed that an education would lead men and women to the ability to be self-governed and become positive contributors to society (Mondale & Patton, 2001). Today, we can see how true this is by the examples of others. Those that are given the opportunity for education are more likely to find jobs and develop skills that not only improve a community, but influence the economic growth of their nation (Ravitch, Cortese, West, Carmichael, Andere, & Munson, 2009, p. 13). On the other hand, if an education is not provided to individuals, they can become a hindrance to that nation’s growth.
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court has protected students’ rights to practice their religious beliefs, so long as they are not “disruptive, discriminatory, or coercive to peers who may not share those same beliefs” (Education Weekly, 2003, para. 3). In 1943, the Supreme Court ruling in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that students could not be “forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance if it violates the individual’s conscience” (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). The 1963 decision in Engel v. Vitale made school prayer unconstitutional, and similarly found school prayer at graduation ceremonies in its 1992 Lee v. Weisman decision (First Amendment Cyber Tribune, 2002). Student-led prayer at public school football games was found unconstitutional in 2000 with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (First Amendment C...
Caplan, Arthur. "Government Should Override Personal Belief." Bach, Julie S., ed. Religion in America: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1989.
It is understood that religious beliefs should be excluded from consideration of public policy because it leads to the ignorance of many religious minorities in the face of dominating religious groups. Most people believe that the question on whether re...