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.