Supreme Court And District Court example essay topic

Abington School District vs. Schempp Required School Prayer In 1949, a state-wide law was passed in Pennsylvania that required public school students to read scriptures from the Bible and recite the Lord's Prayer everyday in class. This law stayed intact until Edward Schempp challenged it nine years later. Pennsylvania wasn't the first or the only state to enforce law making it mandatory for students to read from the Bible during school. Twenty-five additional states had laws allowing "optional" reading for the Bible.

But in eleven of the twenty-five states, courts had decided those laws were unconstitutional. Mr. Schempp took the case to court in to 1958, claiming that required reading for the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Pray prohibited free exercise of religion for his children, and was therefore unconstitutional, under the First Amendment. Mr. Schempp son, El lory, stated under oath, that he didn't not believe in Jesus Christ, or the Christian beliefs. He testified that ideas opposing to his were presented to him while he was at school in Abington High.

He received punishment because he refused to stand at attention during the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and when requested to leave during the exercise, his demands were denied. One of the greatest witnesses was Rabbi Dr. Solomon Grayzel. Dr. Grayzel explained the psychological harm that could come from reading the New Testament without explanation. The context of the New Testament, without explanation of the work, had caused grievances in Jewish children while in similar required situations. This also came to show that if a Jewish child could be offended and upset by the Bible reading, any child of a family rejecting the principles of the Trinity and Jesus Christ would be equally offended, to the point that reading the Bible could be considered blasphemous.

In argument for the recitation of the Lord's Prayer, they said that reading the Bible not only was essential to the building of good morals and development of the minds of impressionable school children, it was free to be interpreted anyway because of lack of comment and explanation. They claimed that the Bible was not a religious work, but when viewed from the eyes of a Christian, it did express the message of Christianity. This case bounced back and forth between Supreme Court and district court before eventually ending in 1963. Abington school district appealed to the Supreme Court after it was not satisfied with the verdict at district court level.

The Supreme Court upheld the District court previous decisions, and finally the law was abolished. The ignorance of the people in Abington surprised me. I cannot understand how a law that so clearly defies the First Amendment could last for so long in the United States. But then again I must ask myself how come in deep Southern states there is still segregation, after the Constitution says we are all equal. Yet it would be silly to ignore that fact that the United States was created by people believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ. Our pledge of allegiance, to our country, the United States, ends with. ".. one nation, under God...

". This case did extinguish God's presence in public schools but still is debated to this day. Many believe that the teachings of the Bible are essential to building good morale in students. But if we were to teach the Bible in school, wouldn't we also be vital to teach the works of other religions as to not teach segregation, or favor one religion over another? Wouldn't it also be essential to teach both Creationism and the theory of evolution in our biology and science classes?

If the Bible can be argued to be vital to a well-rounded education of students, then why don't we teach every theory, hypothesis, and religion in public schools? I believe that a well-rounded education is essential to students. But I also believe in proof, and if you cannot prove to me that a certain "higher-being" exists, then do not try to sell me on it. A lot of people can place their faith into something they believe is invisible, there, you just can't see it. But to me, believing in a theory that cannot be proven is like asking me to place a glass on a table that is not there. I believe that students should know of religions, theories, etc. but be able to make their our decision without outside influence.

This Supreme Court case allows just that.