In 1981, the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring that ...

[P68T]

In 1981, the state of Louisiana passed a law requiring that creation science be taught in the
  public schools whenever evolution-science was taught. No school was required to teach either
  creation science nor evolution science, but if either were taught, then so must the other.
  Critics of the law complained that this law violated the prohibition in the First Amendment
  against the establishment of a state religion. In order to pass muster under this clause, all three
  of the following tests must be met: (1) the state legislature must have adopted the law with a
  secular purpose; (2) the primary effect of the state law must neither advance nor inhibit religion;
  (3) the state law must not result in excessive entanglement of government with religion. The
  U.S. Supreme Court concluded, in a case called Edwards v. Aguilar in 1987, that the statute
  failed each test. It said that the pre-eminent goal of the legislature was to advance a particular
  religious viewpoint promoting creation science, a view not held universally by all religions.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The language under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 during the Cold War,
  an era when the country was particularly alarmed by atheistic communism. Michael Newdow is
  an avowed atheist with a daughter in the elementary school of Elk Grove Unified School District
  in California. He objected to the school districts requirement that his daughter say the Pledge
  including under God, as he considered that government establishment of religion, in violation
  of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. His challenge reached the U.S. Supreme
  Court, which dismissed his claim on a technicality that did not reach this central issue. (The
  technicality was that Newdow did not have the legal standing to raise this issue in the courts.)
  The issue remains an important one to many people. Some of the justices of the Court indicated
  that they would not have found this language under God a First Amendment violation if they
  had reached that question. One justice said that the words under God do not constitute a
  prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but rather a declaration of belief in allegiance and
  loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. Another said that this
  language is an idiom for essentially secular purposes, and that it is acceptable to
  commemorate the role of religion in our history. One justice observed that language such as
  In God we trust on our currency is just a reflection of ceremonial deism that does not
  establish any particular religion.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

[Jordin Calloway]

Answer to Question 1

1. Discuss whether you believe the law passes each of the three tests listed. Look carefully
at the terminology in each test, as you would use it.
2. Now, three decades later, a new effort in Louisiana to regulate science education is
being proposed that would require the teaching of intelligent design whenever evolution
is taught in the public schools. Critics claim that intelligent design is nothing but a new
name for creationism or creation science. Supporters say that students should learn of
all the different approaches to explaining the universe. Should state legislatures have the
right to insist that public schools teach intelligent design or creationism as an alternative
to evolution? Should students who do not accept any of those religious views be forced
to study them in the public schools? Consider the philosophical perspectives of religious
freedom and individual rights in developing your answers.
3. In 1990, in a case called Webster v. New Lenox School District, the public school
district's policy prohibiting the teaching of creation science was challenged. The school
district said it was trying to ensure, consistently with Edwards v. Aguilar, that religious
beliefs were not injected into the public school curriculum. A teacher sued, claiming that
this policy violated his rights to free speech as a public school teacher. The school
district argued that the teacher was engaging in a prohibited form of religious advocacy
in a public school. Develop arguments supporting the teacher, using philosophical
arguments. Then develop a critique of those arguments, again using philosophical
reasoning.
4. Capistrano School District in California adopted a policy that required that evolution be
taught in biology classes. John Peloza, a teacher in the school district, challenged the
policy, claiming that evolutionism is a religion, and thus violated his right to the free
exercise of his own religious views, which rejected evolutionism. The Federal appeals
court, in 1994, sided with the school district, concluding that it was merely requiring a
science teacher to teach a scientific theory in a biology class, not forcing him to adopt
any particular religion. Develop arguments supporting the teacher, using philosophical
arguments. Then develop a critique of those arguments, again using philosophical
reasoning.

Answer to Question 2

1. Do you agree with this reasoning? Does the language about God force atheists and
agnostics to adopt a view of religion they do not accept? Is Deism an example of a type
of religion being established in the Pledge and on our currency?
2. Does this language interfere with the freedom of religion for those who do not accept
Deism, such as Buddhism? Use philosophical reasoning to defend your position.
3. What other examples can you think of in government-funded public life that invoke God?
Are these justifiable on the same grounds used by the Supreme Court?

[P68T]

Thank you!

[Jordin Calloway]

Happy to help