The World & I Online Magazine, ONline Archive and Educational Resource  
World & I School | World & I Homeschool | World & I College | World & I Library
Username:   Password:      Subscribe Now   Register   About Us | Contact Us | FAQs      
The World & I Archive Peoples of the World Book Reviews Worldwide Folktales Fathers of Faith
Search  
Sort by: Results Listed:
Date Range:    Advanced Search

The World & I Magazine
 
Current Issue
The Arts
Life
Natural Science
Culture
Book World
Modern Thought
  Resources
American Waves
Book Reviews
Fathers of Faith
Footsteps of Lincoln
Millennial Moments
Peoples of the World
Profiles in Character
Traveling the Globe
Writers and Writing

Tennessee Textbook Decision Protects Freedom of Conscience


Article # : 12206 

Section : CURRENT ISSUES
Issue Date : 2 / 1987  2,001 Words
Author : Thomas R. Ascik
Thomas R. Ascik, a lawyer and former teacher, is special counsel to the Clearinghouse of Educational Choice. He was formerly a senior research associate at the National Institute of Education.

       Nothing could be more indicative of the distortion in church-state relations in this country than the pervasive impression that the fundamentalist Christian parents in the Tennessee textbook case were seeking to force their own religious view on the school system. In fact, they were seeking exemption from the anti-Christian value imposed on them by the school system. It is more than a little ironic to see these parents stand accused of opposing American pluralism when a true pluralism in their school system would almost certainly have made their suit unnecessary.
       
        Despite the widespread surprise that a federal judge could have given serious consideration to the complaints of the parents, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas G. Hull found that "essential constitutional liberties" were at stake when he ruled that the public school system in Hawkins Country, Tennessee, must accommodate the religious objections of the parents.
       
        The essential constitutional liberty implicated in the case is the free exercise of religion, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. The "free exercise clause" is not as well known as its First Amendment cousin, the "establishment clause." In fact, much of the misunderstanding surrounding the case seems to be a consequence of interpreting the court's free-exercise rationale in establishment-clause terms.
       
        Since 1984, U.S. church-state jurisprudence - and public discussion of church-state relations - has been dominated by the landmark Everson v. Board of Education decision of the Supreme Court. In that decision based on the establishment clause, the court invented the "wall of separation" between church and state and ... (2000 of 12387 Characters)
Read Full Article

Copyright © 2004 The World & I Online. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy