Science Vs. Religion

VOLUME TEN NUMBER 2 High Court Revisits Church-State Debate

by Barbara Sheehan

More than 200 years since the Bill of Rights was ratified in America, our society and our courts continue to debate the intent of the First Amendment and the boundaries that exist between church and state. This can be seen in two recently decided U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning public displays of the Ten Commandments — which interestingly rendered opposite rulings on whether such displays are permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Church-state issues also came into play in East Brunswick last fall when a head football WINTER2006 coach resigned after he Lawsuits Delve into Science vs. Religion by Phyllis Raybin Emert developed from non-human single cells as the result of natural processes, which randomly happened over Since the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s The billions of years. New species were formed, according Origin of Species, there has been an ongoing debate to Darwin’s theory, by passing on characteristics that reportedly was asked to stop about the origins of life on earth. That debate pits were the result of natural selection, or survival of the leading his team in pre-game prayers. supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution against fittest. Weaker species failed to survive and only the While that case was resolved out of religious creationists who believe the creation stories strong traits continued and ultimately evolved into court — and in fact the coach later as told in the Bible. human beings. returned to his position — it The argument has raged since the Scopes Monkey Creationists believe the Bible story of Genesis, which nonetheless brought to the forefront Trial in 1925 and has heated up in recent years with is that God created the earth in six days, about 6,000 the tension that exists when debating several lawsuits that seek to have intelligent design, to 10,000 years ago. Most creationists feel that God this weighty issue. a controversial alternative science, taught alongside made the first human beings all at once exactly as they Brian M. Cige, a constitutional evolution, or as an alternative to it. In 2005 alone, more are today. lawyer in Somerville, says that in all than a dozen bills in 13 different state legislatures were The Center for Science and Culture (CSC), part these cases, like others that came introduced to challenge the teaching of evolution in the of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian before them, the underlying issues public school science curricula. Kansas, Georgia, and research group in Seattle, is largely responsible for remain largely the same. How far can most recently Pennsylvania, have been thrust into the developing and promoting the intelligent design theory. people go in exercising their freedom national spotlight with lawsuits that oppose or dispute Separating themselves from their creationist of religion? the teaching of evolution and instead promote counterparts, CSC and supporters of intelligent design intelligent design, considered by some to be a see it as an alternative science. They accept that the Separation takes hold: a look back “scientific” offshoot of creationism. age of the earth is several billion years old and even To fully appreciate the church- accept some parts of the doctrine state debate, one might first take Evolution v. Intelligent Design of natural selection. However, a look back in history at how the Darwin’s theory of evolution they believe that life is too earliest American settlers dealt with explains that all complex and complicated to this issue. One account can be found human life be completely explained by in a fall 1997 report on the Bill of evolution. They do not claim Rights in Action: Separating Church that the intelligent designer is and State, by the Constitutional God, a higher being, or an Rights Foundation (CRF), a non- omnipotent force, but only profit, non-partisan, community- that “certain features of the based organization. CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 According to that report, church and state were closely linked in America in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War, with 9 of Freedom of the Press Helps Everyone, NotNot JustJust ReportersReporters the 13 colonies supporting official religions with public taxes. The by Cheryl Baisden The First Amendment Center in report further notes, “Religious Nashville, an organization that works dissenters…were discriminated In some countries, writing an article like this— to preserve and protect First against, disqualified from holding where different ideas and opinions are expressed— Amendment freedoms through public office, exiled, fined, jailed, would be illegal, and could land you in jail. But in information and education, beaten, mutilated and sometimes the United States, the First Amendment to the U.S. encourages all Americans to even executed.” Constitution guarantees citizens the right to express take the right to freedom of With the onset of the themselves in print. the press seriously, whether Revolutionary War, the Church of Freedom of the press is one of our basic rights they are reporting the news England began to lose its “monopoly under the First Amendment, which prohibits the or reading about it. Associated with on religion” in the southern states, government from restricting what is written in Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy according to the CRF report, and newspapers and magazines, and reported on Studies, the Center notes that in the move toward more universal television and radio. countries without laws that protect separation of church and state “The Founding Fathers knew that the press could be freedom of the press, the government started to take shape. a check on government power,” says Bruce S. Rosen, a controls what is reported, so citizens only Among the leaders of this Chatham lawyer who works on First Amendment cases. hear one side of an issue and do not movement were James Madison “The Founding Fathers also hoped that the press would have the right to publish their own and Thomas Jefferson, who were encourage participation in important public issues and opinions. Reporters and publishers instrumental in defeating proposed educate the public.” who decide to go CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 Freedom of the Press CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1

against the government’s opinions, the Center asserts, protected by the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in are often arrested. the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, which held that in order to prove defamation the reporting in Freedom of the Press, not absolute question must be proven to have malicious intent or a Of course while we are guaranteed the right to a “reckless disregard for the truth or advance knowledge This publication was made possible through funding free press, that right can be abused if it involves lies or of falsity.” from the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey. sensitive information that could endanger people’s lives, In his dissenting opinion in the Consumer which is why reporters and publishers sometimes end Reports case, Judge Alex Kozinksi of the Ninth Angela C. Scheck EXECUTIVE EDITOR up in court defending their First Amendment right to Circuit Court cited the Sullivan case stating, “I find it express themselves, according to Rosen. Just how far incomprehensible that a review truthfully disclosing all Jodi L. Miller the right to a free press goes is frequently tested in the this information could be deemed malicious under New EDITOR courts. In some cases, people have sued for defamation York Times Co. v. Sullivan. If Consumers Union [the of character or libel, which means their reputation was company that owns Consumer Reports] can be forced Editorial Advisory Board damaged when false information was reported by the to go to trial after this thorough and candid disclosure Stuart M. Lederman, Esq. press. In those cases it has to be proven that the report of its methods, this is the death of consumer ratings. CHAIR was false, and that the reporter or publisher printed It will be impossible to issue a meaningful consumer the lie intending to harm the person. review that a band of determined lawyers can’t pick Paula Eisen “Within certain limitations, the media is free to apart in front of a jury. The ultimate losers will be John J. Henschel, Esq. do or say anything it wants, however, if a reporter American consumers denied access to independent Louis H. Miron, Esq. revealed movements of U.S. troops, for example, which information about the safety and usefulness of Carole B. Moore jeopardized U.S. lives, that may not be protected, and products they buy with their hard-earned dollars,” Steven M. Richman, Esq. may be subject to criminal penalties,” says Rosen. Judge Kozinski wrote. Thomas A. Zeringo “If you wrote lies about someone and hurt their reputation, you may be subject to civil (money) Finally resolved New Jersey State Bar Foundation penalties, as well.” In November 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Board of Trustees the request to hear the case. After an eight-year battle, Consumer Reports v. Suzuki both Consumer Reports and Suzuki agreed to have the John J. Henschel, Esq. A recent First Amendment case concerning freedom case dismissed in July 2004. With the dismissal of the PRESIDENT of the press involved a 1988 review published in case, neither side will receive monetary damages and Consumer Reports, a magazine that tests everything neither side is required to admit liability in the matter. Ellen O’Connell, Esq. from air conditioners to washing machines and then According to Rosen, if the case had gone to trial, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT reports on the results. In a review of sports utility the court probably would have found that Consumer Mary Ellen Tully, Esq. vehicles (SUVs), Consumer Reports rated the Suzuki Reports’ review was protected under the First SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Samurai “not acceptable” because their tests showed Amendment, since the magazine’s article explained it tended to tip and roll over during sharp turns. the reasons for its rating. Richard J. Badolato, Esq. Suzuki charged the magazine with product “If you say a product is dangerous, you also need TREASURER disparagement (or defaming its product), claiming it to provide the basis for your opinion,” he says. “You intentionally rigged the test so the inexpensive SUV can be wrong, but if after you give your reasons the Stuart M. Lederman, Esq. would fail and Consumer Reports could use the results conclusion is a matter of opinion, it is protected.” SECRETARY in advertising to raise money. The carmaker said the This is why newspapers can publish restaurant and TRUSTEES report defamed the reputation of the SUV, and because movie reviews without worrying about being sued, of declining sales Suzuki had to stop unless they make outrageous claims they can’t support. Mary M. Ace producing the vehicles. For example, Rosen explains, a reviewer could say a William G. Brigiani, Esq. Consumer Reports claimed restaurant’s food stinks, but if the newspaper reported Allen A. Etish, Esq. the test and results were the food could poison you, the restaurant owner could Stuart A. Hoberman, Esq. accurate, and that the sue and win unless the food really did poison someone. Lisa H. James-Beavers, Esq. magazine had a First To Rosen, the importance of freedom of Peggy Sheahan Knee. Esq. Amendment right to report the press cannot be overstated. “Without Ralph J. Lamparello, Esq. on the Samurai’s failures. freedom of the press you would be Edwin J. McCreedy, Esq. Initially dismissed by a unable to express your opinion in print Louis H. Miron, Esq. federal district court in or on television or radio, Carole B. Moore California, the Ninth Circuit or be able to report on Lynn Fontaine Newsome. Esq. Court of Appeals overturned important issues without John H. Ogden, Esq. that decision and re-instated government approval,” Wayne J. Positan, Esq. the case in June 2002. Rosen said. “The public Steven M. Richman, Esq. would not be able to Richard H. Steen, Esq. The New York Times understand the important issues. Margaret Leggett Tarver, Esq. v. Sullivan We would not be able to have an Ronald J. Uzdavinis, Esq. One of the arguments that objective view of our elected officials, and Leonard R. Wizmur, Esq. Consumer Reports had put forth in its how they are doing, and democracy as we know defense was that, as a magazine, it is it would cease to exist,” he concluded.

Catch Us on the U.S. Supreme Court Update On February 1, 2006, Samuel A. Alito Jr. became nomination was received with widespread disapproval Web and Read the 110th justice to be seated on the U.S. Supreme and criticism, based on what many perceived as her Court. He was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts, lack of experience in constitutional law. Before the The Legal Eagle Online who had been sworn in just four months earlier. U.S. Senate could conduct its hearings, President In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, which had Bush withdrew Miers’ nomination at her request. Back issues of The Legal Eagle remained unchanged for 11 years, suddenly had two The search for a new nominee resulted in the since its inception in 1996, can be vacancies. In June, Associate Justice Sandra Day nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, an Appeals Court found on the New Jersey State O’Connor announced her retirement and two months judge from New Jersey. While Judge Alito received the Bar Foundation’s Web site at later, former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died. American Bar Association’s highest approval rating for www.njsbf.org. At first, President George W. Bush nominated Judge his experience, various senators expressed concern John Roberts to replace Justice O’Connor. When Chief over how Judge Alito responded to questions on how Justice Rehnquist died, however, the president precedent-setting cases would affect future court While you’re there, check out proposed Judge Roberts to fill that vacancy instead. decisions. Other senators believed such concerns were other interesting and fun stuff in After hearings during which the U.S. Senate more political than legal. our Students’ Corner. There is also Judiciary Committee questioned Roberts about his After an unsuccessful attempt led by Democratic useful information for teachers views on constitutional law, the full U.S. Senate Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry for a about other approved his nomination by a vote of 78–22, making filibuster, the full U.S. Senate confirmed Samuel Alito Foundation him the 17th chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. by a vote of 58–42. This was the closest confirmation Still needing a replacement for Associate Justice vote since Justice Clarence Thomas, school- O’Connor, President Bush nominated an attorney on who was confirmed 52–48 in 1991. based his staff, Harriet E. Miers. Unlike John Roberts, Miers’ —Roberta K. Glassner, Esq. 2 programs. Science vs. Religion CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 natural world are the products of intelligence.” Darwin’s theory to his students and was passing legislation forbidding the teaching of According to the Discovery Institute, “the charged with violating the Butler Act. What evolution in public schools. Some publishers scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic ensued was the Scopes Monkey Trial, which even deleted any mention of it from their regarding the source of design and has no pitted famous defense attorney Clarence textbooks. Tennessee repealed the Butler Act commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible, Darrow against three-time presidential in 1967 when a teacher, who was fired for or any sacred text.” candidate and fundamentalist leader William violating the Act, claimed that it violated his Jennings Bryan, and was also the inspiration First Amendment right to free speech. In 1968, The Scopes trial for the stage play Inherit the Wind. the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the Although the theory of evolution is the The trial attracted national attention and issue for the entire country with the case of accepted scientific standard today, there was was the first trial to be broadcast on national Epperson v. Arkansas (see sidebar). In that case, a time in some Southern states when it was radio. The defense challenged the Butler Act the Court ruled that banning the teaching of illegal to teach it in public schools. In 1925, the on a number of different issues, including its evolution is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Tennessee Legislature passed the Butler Act, violation of the separation of church and state; establishment clause, which prohibits the named after John Washington Butler, the however, after eight days the jury returned a government from endorsing any one Tennessee farmer who proposed the law. The guilty verdict and the judge fined John Scopes religious belief. Butler Act made it illegal to teach the theory of $100. Scopes’ conviction would eventually be evolution, or any theory that denied the biblical overturned on the technicality that the jury Kitzmiller v. Dover—Scopes II, but in reverse account of creation, in Tennessee public schools. should have set the amount of the fine, not According to The New York Times, lawyers The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) joined the judge. at the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, a with local high school biology teacher John By the end of the 1920s, Mississippi, nonprofit Christian organization, visited school Scopes to challenge the law. Scopes taught Arkansas and Texas had joined Tennessee in boards throughout the country to find one willing to teach intelligent design and challenge evolution in the classroom. School districts in Challenges Over Evolution vs. Creationism Through the Years Michigan, Minnesota, and West Virginia, among others, turned them down. Despite a warning from its lawyer, the school board in Dover, The U.S. Supreme Court has used the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the Pennsylvania said yes. U.S. Constitution to decide many cases regarding the teaching of evolution vs. creationism. In October 2004, the eight-member Dover Below are a few notable cases decided by the Court and several lower courts. school board voted to become the first district • Everson v. Board of Education (1947)—The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of in the U.S. to require that students in 9th grade the establishment clause. Justice Hugo Black wrote, “Neither a state nor the federal government biology class be taught intelligent design. can openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organization or groups and vice According to newspaper accounts, before versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause…was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation teaching evolution, teachers were required to between church and state.’” read the following disclaimer: “Because • Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)—An Arkansas state law prohibited public school teachers Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be from instructing students in the “theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from tested as new evidence is discovered... Gaps in a lower order of animals.” Believing the state law to be wrong, Susan Epperson, a high school the theory exist for which there is no biology teacher in Little Rock, taught her students evolution and was fired from her job. The evidence... Intelligent design is an explanation U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Arkansas law was unconstitutional because it violated the of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, which deals with equal justice under the law. view.” The statement then advised students to The justices held that the law’s main purpose was to promote the religious beliefs of read the intelligent design textbook, Of Pandas fundamental creationists who believed in the reading of the book of Genesis as fact. The Court and People, which was available in the school declared that a state should not eliminate ideas from a school curriculum because those ideas library. conflicted with the beliefs of other religious groups. A group of teachers in Dover responded to • Segraves v. State of California (1981)—Kelly Seagraves claimed that the teaching of this order by sending a letter to the school evolution prohibited the free exercise of religion by his three children. The California Supreme district superintendent. According to New York Court ruled that teaching evolution was not an infringement of religious beliefs, and scientific Magazine columnist Ken Andersen, the teachers discussions should be focused on how life began and evolved and not on the ultimate cause wrote (all in caps), “Intelligent design is not or origins. science. Intelligent Design is not biology. • McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982)—Arkansas passed a law called Act 590 Intelligent Design is not an accepted scientific in 1981, which required a “balanced treatment of Creation Science and Evolution Science.” A theory.” group of parents and clergy of various faiths sued the state board, challenging the law. Federal As expected, a group of parents sued the District Court Judge William Overton wrote that Act 590 was “…simply and purely an effort to school board, stating in their lawsuit that the introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula…the Act was passed board had, “injected religious creationism into with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.” The enforcement of science classes in the guise of intelligent Act 590 was permanently prohibited. Overton declared that First Amendment principles are not design.” The main issues of the suit were determined by public opinion. Whether creationists are in the majority or minority “is quite whether intelligent design was actually based irrelevant under a constitutional system of government,” the judge wrote. “No group, no matter on religious beliefs and whether it violated the how large or small may use the organs of government of which the public schools are the most establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. conspicuous and influential to foist its religious beliefs on others.” During the six-week trial in September 2005, • Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990)—In 1987, a social studies teacher in Illinois a Harrisburg federal district court heard named Ray Webster disagreed with a textbook that stated the earth was more than 4 billion scientists testify both in support of and in years old. After Webster started teaching creation science and ignored the textbook, a student opposition to intelligent design. Attorneys from complained and the school district warned him to stop. Webster sued the school district, the More Center, who represented the Dover claiming his right to free speech had been violated. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld school board at no charge, argued that students a lower court decision that the school district had not violated Webster’s free speech. The court should have academic freedom and access to ruled that the school district could prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science to prevent different scientific theories. They declared the a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. board did not have a religious agenda and was • Peloza v. Capistrano School District (1994)—Ray Peloza, a high school biology teacher in not motivated by a desire to promote any California, sued the Capistrano school district, claiming that evolution was a type of religion and religious beliefs. teaching it in public schools was a violation of the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of The New York Times reported that in his Appeals rejected Peloza’s claim and upheld the school district’s requirement to teach Darwin’s opening statement, the attorney for the parents theory in biology classes. called intelligent design “the 21st century • Freiler v. Tangipahoa Board of Education (1999)—In 1997, the Tangipahoa School version of creationism.” He declared that the District in eastern Louisiana passed a policy requiring teachers to read a statement (disclaimer) trial would show that the school board had aloud before teaching evolution. The statement declared that evolution was only a theory and originally wanted creationism to be taught in teaching it was not intended to change minds about the Bible creation story. The Fifth Circuit the classroom, with one member proposing that Court of Appeals held that “…to convey the message that evolution is a religious viewpoint that creationism and evolution be given equal time. runs counter to…other religious views” is religiously motivated and unconstitutional. The U.S. Intelligent design was substituted, the attorney Supreme Court declined to hear the school board’s appeal. said, after the school board was advised that • Selman v. Cobb County School District (2005)—In the Cobb County, Georgia school the courts had already ruled that teaching district, all textbooks that deal with evolution were required to have a sticker inside that read, creationism in schools is unconstitutional. “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, The verdict and critically considered.” Parents sued the school district, claiming the stickers were faith- In December 2005, U.S. District Judge based and a violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. District John E. Jones III ruled against the Dover Court of the Northern District of Georgia agreed with the parents and held that the stickers school board and, in his written opinion, misled students about the importance of evolution in science and weakened the First called intelligent design “a religious view Amendment. The stickers were ordered to be removed. —Phyllis Raybin Emert CONTINUED ON PAGE 4 3 Science vs. Religion CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3 and a mere re-labeling of on a platform that opposed the A group of parents instituted Casey Luskin, legal affairs creationism, not a scientific intelligent design policy, making an a lawsuit challenging the teaching director for the Discovery Institute, theory.” appeal to the decision in Kitzmiller of the class. Among other things, told The Los Angeles Times that In his 139-page opinion, Judge v. Dover unlikely. the lawsuit cites the fact that the keeping students from learning Jones accused the school board teacher for the class has “no about alternatives to evolutionary members of lying and called their Suit filed in California training or certificate in science, theory amounted to censorship. testimony claiming that they Despite the ruling in religion or philosophy and is the The Los Angeles Times reported wanted to improve the science Pennsylvania, in January 2006 a wife of the minister for the local that the case was ultimately settled curriculum by fostering a debate, school board in California approved Assembly of God Church, a out of court, with the El Tejon “a sham and a pretext for the a course, called Philosophy of Christian fundamentalist church Unified School District agreeing to board’s real purpose, which was Design, to be taught at Frazier and a proponent of a creationist terminate the existing course and to promote religion in the public Mountain High School in Lebec, a world view.” never to offer such a course again. classroom.” As evidence of the rural community more than 60 The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive school board’s hidden agenda, miles outside of Los Angeles. director of Americans United for Poll shows divide over the judge noted in his opinion that According to The Los Angeles Separation of Church and State, the man’s origin the trial included remarks from Times, the course description read, organization that represented the Despite court rulings, a July a school board meeting where a “the class will take a close look at parents in the case, told The Los 2005 poll, conducted by the Pew supporter of intelligent design evolution as a theory and will Angeles Times that this type of Forum on Religion and Public Life, said, “words to the effect of ‘2,000 discuss the scientific, biological and course is “the wave of the future” a non-partisan, non-advocacy years ago someone died on a cross. biblical aspects that suggest why for supporters of intelligent design. organization, revealed that 42 Can’t someone take a stand for Darwin’s philosophy is not rock “It is my understanding that this percent of the people polled held Him?’” solid. The class will discuss school district has been approached “strict creationist views,” while 48 A month before the verdict was intelligent design as an alternative by other school districts to clone percent said, “they believed handed down all eight members of response to evolution. Physical and this course and use it elsewhere,” humans have evolved over time.” In the Dover school board were voted chemical evidence will be presented Rev. Lynn said. “That is why this is all, 64 percent said creationism out of office. According to The suggesting the earth is thousands of national significance. We would should be taught alongside Philadelphia Inquirer, the newly- of years olds, not billions.” like to build a retaining wall against evolution in schools and more than elected school board members ran that wave with this case.” a third were in favor of replacing evolution with creationism. These statistics seem to show that Americans are deeply divided CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 High Court Revisits Church-State Debate on their views of evolution and legislation that called for a tax supporting Christian neutral toward religion,” the court majority said, intelligent design. Attorney Viola churches in Virginia. Instead, Madison and Jefferson “and may neither promote nor discourage it.” Lordi of Wilentz, Goldman and successfully lobbied to implement a law that severed Reflective, perhaps, of the mixed opinions that Spitzer in Woodbridge, who all ties between the state of Virginia and religion. exist on this topic, however, the same court ruled, specializes in school law, thinks This, according to the CRF report, was “the first time in an equally close 5-4 vote, to uphold the that the lesson kids should take that a government anywhere in the world had acted constitutionality of the Ten Commandments from this controversy is that adults to legally separate religion from the state.” monument in Texas. In that case, the courts take what kids learn in school In a widely circulated petition on that topic, considered, among other things, that the seriously—enough to fight about it according to the CRF report, “Madison declared that monument stands among some 17 other in court. it was the natural right of all persons, even atheists, monuments and 21 plaques on the capitol grounds. “We are a multi-cultural society to be left to their own private views of religion. He “The pair of rulings suggests that the Ten and people bring different views to argued that throughout history ‘superstition, bigotry, Commandments may be displayed inconspicuously the table,” Lordi said. “This issue and persecution’ have accompanied the union of among other documents or monuments, but cannot [of evolution] was fought 80 years religion and government. He also asserted that be made the focus of attention in a courthouse or ago and in 100 years, we may still Christianity did not need the support of government government building,” The Los Angeles Times be arguing about it.” to flourish.” reported. What does the First Amendment say? Other issues GLOSSARY For direction in deciding church-state cases, our In addition to cases above, Cige notes that the courts frequently look to the First Amendment to courts have, in the past, considered such issues as the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1791 in whether religious displays, such as Christmas trees the Bill of Rights and provides a general framework or menorahs, should be constitutionally allowed in agnostic — pertaining to the on which to base opinions. Specifically the First public places, for example in schools or government theory that no one can know Amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law buildings. Also at the heart of considerable for certain whether God exists. respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting controversy, which is still being debated, is whether the free exercise thereof…” it is constitutional for students in public schools to defamation — a deliberate So, while on the one hand, the First Amendment recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “under false statement, either supports the “free exercise” of religion, the God,” in it. published or publicly spoken, “establishment clause” prohibits the government from Perhaps the greatest variable in the debate, Cige that injures another person’s endorsing any one particular religious belief and, in suggests, is the court’s interpretation of the U.S. reputation. the widely quoted words of Thomas Jefferson builds Constitution, an interpretation that can change over dissenting opinion — a “a wall of separation between church and state.” time. That is one reason why, he says, so much statement written by a judge importance is placed on the nominees to the U.S. that disagrees with the opinion Recent cases heard Supreme Court. reached by the majority of his Questions about just how high this “wall of or her colleagues. separation” extends have been the subject of Nothing personal numerous public debates and court discussions. Last While debates about church-state issues raise filibuster — an attempt to year, church-state lines were called to question in questions and sometimes raise tempers, Martin block legislation or a judicial two U.S. Supreme Court cases that Pachman, school board attorney in East Brunswick appointment by prolonged considered public displays of the where the coaching incident speaking. Ten Commandments. occurred, reminds people not to liability — an obligation of One of the cases challenged the take them personally. responsibility for an action or posting of the Ten Commandments In the end, it’s not about situation, according to law. in two Kentucky courthouses. whether one religion is better The other challenged a Ten than another — or whether libel — something that is Commandments monument on no religion at all is best. published (that is untrue) the grounds of the Texas Capitol Rather, Pachman says it which damages a person’s in Austin. comes down to the U.S. reputation. In the first case, the justices Constitution and finding a malicious intent — to act with ruled 5-4 that the postings in the balance between allowing purposeful ill will. Kentucky courthouses were not people to practice their permissible under the U.S. beliefs freely and at the precedent — a legal case that Constitution, calling them “a same time preventing serves as a model for all future sacred text” that carried an state enforcement of action on a particular issue. “unmistakably religious” any one particular repealed — revoked. A law message. “The religious belief. that is repealed has been government and its withdrawn or cancelled and is 4 officials must be no longer a law.