![]() ![]() Engel made it clear that prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Schempp modified the earlier Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian”. Schempp wanted to challenge a law in Pennsylvania that stated “At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day. Edward Schempp filed suit because his son had to read the Bible as a portion of his education. The historical background of this case is that it was brought in 1963 by Edward Schempp, who had a son, Ellory Schempp, who was attending a public school in Pennsylvania. This means, that Abington School District may not only have interfered with students individual religious beliefs, but also with the constitutional point requiring governmental institutions to not favor any religion. The intent of the Court’s decision in Schempp was to emphasize the First Amendment principles of both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. This essay argues that through reforming the enforcement of this law by constituting training for the teachers, the implementation of this particular rule would be more effective. In this essay, the background, procedure and pattern of enforcement, other related court decisions, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of this law in the different regions of the US will be analyzed. One Supreme Court decision that challenges school prayer is Abington School District v. This concept, however, is in contrast to the public opinion when it comes to prayer in public schools. The separation of religion and public institutions are essential to the American identity and clearly mentioned in the First Amendment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |