Student1: Public schools may not sponsor, supervise, conduct, or encourage any Student to lead, conduct or recite bible readings, religious Invocations or other religious ceremonies in any school activity. Student2: A student's parent whose name was Jaffree sued alleging that this law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it forced students to pray and basically exposed them to religious indoctrination Student1: Jaffree decided to file this suit after his three children reported that their teachers had led prayers in school. Student2: Jaffree claimed that the 1981 and 1982 Alabama statutes on prayer in public schools violated the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Student1: According to the Court, this was a clear violation of the 1st Amendment's establishment clause Student2: The majority of people believed that the law is in violation of the First Amendment and must be overturned. Teacher: Who was Wallace? Student1: Wallace was the governor of Alabama at that time Student2: As the case was going on, Jaffree's children were excluded and ridiculed by classmates because of their father's opposition to school prayer.
Prayer in the Public School System PHI 200 Instructor: March 21, 2011 The question of whether prayer should be allowed in the Public School System is a question that has been debated for many decades. The debate started in 1962 and runs still today. In this debate some have said that if all religions cannot be represented then none should be represented. Prayer in public schools became an issue in 1960: When Madalyn Murray O'Hair sued the Baltimore MD school system on behalf of her son William J Murray, because he was being forced to pray in school. Ultimately, her actions and the actions of the American Atheist Organization resulted in the Supreme Court ruling of 1962.
Reasons given to these suspensions was that the school system did not allow for students to wear armbands in school. The parents filed a case against the Des Moines school system stating that they had violated the teenagers rights to peaceful protest and to freedom of speech. Tinker vs Des Moines reached the Supreme Court where they ruled in favor of Tinker saying that forcing them to stop a peaceful protest, that did not interrupt learning at the schools, by attempting to remove the armbands did infringe on the kids first and fourteenth amendment rights. Tinker V Des Moines outcome set precedent for future cases involving public school systems and First amendment rights, such as the Easton Area School District appeal to the US Supreme Court to uphold their ban on the "I Love Boobies" bracelets that many students in there schools were wearing. The board voted seven to one against the schools appeal stating that the students were wearing the bracelets for charity and that to ask them to remove them would violate
Case Study: Counts vs. Cedarville School District Situation The Counts v. Cedarville School District court case was about the Harry Potter book series. After receiving a complaint from a parent, the Cedarville School Board voted 3-2 to remove all of the books from the Harry Potter series from the open shelves of public school libraries. Students who wished to read or check out these books could do so only with written parental permission. Several students and their parents filed suit, seeking the return of the books to the open shelves. In the course of discovery, the School Board members who voted to remove the books acknowledged that they had not read many of the books and that they removed them because they exposed students to the "religion of witchcraft."
Facts: Mr. and Mrs. Edward Schempp, Unitarian in religion, brought a complaint against the Abington School District in Pennsylvania because their children were required to listen to ten Bible verses read each morning, followed by a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Teachers were required to participate in the exercise under threat of losing their jobs, while students were required to stand at attention for the reading. No comments were made following the verses. The Schempps held that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional, as they believed the statute violated the 1st Amendment Establishment clause stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled just one year earlier in Engel v. Vitale (1962), that even non-sectarian generic prayers were unlawful and in violation of the Establishment Cause of the 1st Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Schempp case combined with the Murray v. Curlett case together as a once and for all means of settling the issue of Bible reading and prayer in public schools.
Books with artistic and cultural value are still challenged every day by those who want to control what others read. These people that put all their effort to censor books and free expression are unacceptable and unconditional. By censoring school books in libraries, our basic freedoms that are guaranteed in the First Amendment are violated. In other words, to be told what is were allowed to read and what is not is a direct defilement of the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”(Asato, 287). The quote clearly states that the congress will not take away our freedom of speech.
This managed to break the circle of organization so the members had no one to follow. Elizabeth also pushed for the suppression of prophesying, as it would cause controversy if they were to discuss everything they believed wrong with her Settlement. However, Elizabeth’s current Archbishop, Grindal, refused to carry out her orders and instead supported the idea. In reaction to this, Elizabeth dismissed him from his post and instead found a new Archbishop in 1583 that would be loyal to her, Whitgift. He forbade unlicensed preaching, and religious practices with the Queen’s assent.
I’ve been violating the dress code for two years, wearing shirts that only cover my torso, without even knowing it. How silly of me! I should have realized our public schools run by the United States government that believes in Separation of Church and State would want us to wear burkas to school. What about that rule stating no head coverings are permitted in school excluding religious reasons? A burka would cover my head and I’m not Muslim.
Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the ‘land of the free’.” The quote basically states that freedom of speech is actually being able to burn the American flag without being arrested. Secondly, flag desecration is protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In my opinion, parents should not vaccinate their children if they want to protect them from developing autism. First of all parents should not vaccinate their children, if they want to protect them from developing autism, because families all over the nation are pointing to childhood vaccinations as the cause for autism. Despite what government and medical authorities say about the safety of vaccines, parents are wise to hear what the parents of autistic children say about their children being normal until vaccinations (Attkinson, 2011). Even though this is not official scientific proof, it is definitely loud enough to make any parent think twice before vaccinating their children. Secondly, parents should oppose vaccinating their children as a way of protection from developing autism because of the significant step of banning mercury from being included in vaccines, which was taken by the US government related to this matter (Campbell, 2004).