The Constitution promises freedom of religion to the people of the United States under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The petitioner in this case is trying to convince the court that his freedom of religion has been violated. This comes to the question raised on whether or not the school of Shermerville is violating Peter’s freedom of religion, or if Peter is violating the establishment clause.
Due Process Clause from the fourteenth amendment does not allow the State from depriving a person’s life, liberty and property. Now, the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the state government as well as the Congress thanks to the Incorporated Doctrine. Peter is proposing that the school violated the Free Exercise Clause and that the school …show more content…
This case also involves the Establishment Clause also, from the first amendment, which says that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that the Government can not establish an official religion, but also can be implied that the government is not allowed to promote one religion over another. In this case, Peter is a teacher of Shermerville Grade School, which is a public school. Public schools are funded by the state, therefore they are indirectly connected to the government.
A case named Roberts vs Madigan was a heavy influence in the decision. Roberts accused that the school was violating his freedom of religion when he was asked to remove his Bible during free reading time. The district court said, “the difference between teaching about religion, which is acceptable, and teaching religion, which is not,” meaning religion in school for educational purposes only while being indoctrinating students about religion is unacceptable (Roberts v. Madigan 7). Although Roberts never forced his students to read the Bible, he indirectly taught his students his religion by setting up an example of silent reading by reading the Bible. This visual lesson includes teaching Christianity, which violates the Establishment Clause. An argument can be made that
Due Process Clause from the fourteenth amendment does not allow the State from depriving a person’s life, liberty and property. Now, the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the state government as well as the Congress thanks to the Incorporated Doctrine. Peter is proposing that the school violated the Free Exercise Clause and that the school …show more content…
This case also involves the Establishment Clause also, from the first amendment, which says that Congress shall “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This means that the Government can not establish an official religion, but also can be implied that the government is not allowed to promote one religion over another. In this case, Peter is a teacher of Shermerville Grade School, which is a public school. Public schools are funded by the state, therefore they are indirectly connected to the government.
A case named Roberts vs Madigan was a heavy influence in the decision. Roberts accused that the school was violating his freedom of religion when he was asked to remove his Bible during free reading time. The district court said, “the difference between teaching about religion, which is acceptable, and teaching religion, which is not,” meaning religion in school for educational purposes only while being indoctrinating students about religion is unacceptable (Roberts v. Madigan 7). Although Roberts never forced his students to read the Bible, he indirectly taught his students his religion by setting up an example of silent reading by reading the Bible. This visual lesson includes teaching Christianity, which violates the Establishment Clause. An argument can be made that