The establishment clause prohibits congress from mandating a state
Congress has no power to make any religious establishments, it is therefore unnecessary.” James Madison acknowledged the validity of this argument when he initially proposed amendments, but echoed the fears of many that without express prohibition, Congress might invade the rights of the people.It has been said that in the federal government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained: that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and therefore a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the government.Despite a popular perception that the 8-1 decision ripped religion out of public schools by banning the ceremonial reading of Bible verses, prominent First Amendment scholars and educators say Abington v.Schempp marked a rare consensus among conservative and liberal justices that actually provided a framework for allowing religion into the public school curriculum.
” has been the centerpiece of the secularist drive to marginalize Christianity in the public sphere since the 1940s.Schempp — the shorthand reference to the ruling — clarified that while government can't promote or denigrate religion, the subject of faith and its role in history, literature and the arts has educational value and can be taught in public schools."Schempp became the founding document for teaching about religion in school," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the center's Religious Freedom Education Project.Scopes lost his case, and further states passed laws banning the teaching of evolution. Arkansas, another challenge to these laws, and the court ruled that allowing the teaching of creation, while disallowing the teaching of evolution, advanced a religion, and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution.Creationists then starting lobbying to have laws passed that required teachers to Teach the Controversy, but this was also struck down by the Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Creationists then moved to frame the issue as one of intelligent design but this too was ruled against in a District Court in Kitzmiller v. The issue has remained contentious, with various US states debating, passing, or voting down alternative approaches to creationism in science classrooms.
To get inside the minds of the authors, we must first recall the period in which they wrote.