PRESENTATION OUTLINE
AMENDMENT
In the Establishment Clause the court ruled that the teaching of "Creationism" along with evolution violated the 1st Amendment.
The 1st amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This case of the Establishment Clause was appealed to court in
1986 and decided on in 1987
This case was about having a balance between teaching Creation-science and Evolution-science in Public school. Which meant that if a teacher chose to teach one then they had to teach the other.
This case was voted in Aguillard's favor with 7 of the 9 votes. Aguillard felt that having to teach "Creationism" was unconstitutional.
Edward's who felt that "Creationism" should be taught along side "Evolution," lost his court case with only 2 of the 9 votes.
Dissenters:
Brennan felt that the Establishment Clause was raising a high barrier between church and state. He felt as if this case did not go against the 1st ammendment.
In 1995 Scalia said " We must pray for the courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world." In response to the case he was about to review. Scalia was obvious as to how he would vote.
I disagree with the ruling of this case. I do agree with Brennan and Aguillard. I don't think that teaching "Creationism" alongside "Evolution" goes against the 1st amendment. If teachers have the freedom to teach about Evolution then they should also have to teach about Creationism because not every student in the class may believe in Evolution. The same would go for those teacher who want to teach Creationism should also have to teach Evolution out of respect for others.