1. A couple refuses life-saving medical treatment for their son who suffers from Leukemia. They claim it goes against their religious beliefs to expose their son to ‘western medicine’. In their minds, God is testing them & if their son is to survive it will be through prayer & not medical treatment. The son dies. Should the parents be arrested for ‘child-endangerment’ or should they be protected under the 1 st Amendment’s Freedom of Religion? Be ready 2 explain in class A couple refuses life-saving medical treatment for their son who suffers from Leukemia. They claim it goes against their religious beliefs to expose their son to ‘western medicine’. In their minds, God is testing them & if their son is to survive it will be through prayer & not medical treatment. The son dies. Should the parents be arrested for ‘child-endangerment’ or should they be protected under the 1 st Amendment’s Freedom of Religion? Be ready 2 explain in class

2. Unit 3 – Supreme Court Cases SEC. ONE: FREEDOM OF RELIGION (1 st Amendment)

3. 1. INDIVIDUAL WORTH THE IDEA THAT WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR OURSELVES THE IDEA THAT WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR OURSELVES Short Answer Short Answer

4. 2. CIVIL LIBERTIES THE LAWS THAT PROTECT OUR INDIVIDUAL WORTH THE LAWS THAT PROTECT OUR INDIVIDUAL WORTH THE 1 ST AMENDMENT THE 1 ST AMENDMENT Fill In Fill In

5. 3. 4 BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES IN 1 ST AMENDMENT (multiple choice) FREEDOM OF RELIGION FREEDOM OF RELIGION FREEDOM OF SPEECH FREEDOM OF SPEECH FREEDOM OF PRESS FREEDOM OF PRESS FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

6. 4. Analogy between swinging your arm and practicing your 1 st Amendment freedoms You can do both so long as you do not harm anyone or society as a whole You can do both so long as you do not harm anyone or society as a whole Extra Credit Extra Credit

7. 2 FREEDOM OF RELIGION CLAUSES (extra credit) 5. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: 5. ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: GOV’T. WILL NOT PROMOTE ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER OR RELIGION OVER NON-RELIGION 6. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: 6. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE: YOU CAN WORSHIP WHO, HOW, AND WHERE YOU WANT SO LONG AS YOU DON’T HARM ANYONE OR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

8. Questions’ #7 & #8 will each be a matching section where the cases will be in a word bank & you have to match them to their correct ruling Questions’ #7 & #8 will each be a matching section where the cases will be in a word bank & you have to match them to their correct ruling

9. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS) EVERSON V. BD. OF ED. (1947) – EVERSON V. BD. OF ED. (1947) – BACKGROUND: N.J. PROVIDED TRANSPORTATION ON PUBLIC BUSES FOR PAROCHIAL STUDENTS. TAXPAYERS SUED DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF N.J. CUZ THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO ENSURE CHILD SAFETY (CHILD BENEFIT THEORY)

10. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS) (GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS) LEMON V. KURTZMAN (1971) – LEMON V. KURTZMAN (1971) – DECISION: S.C. SET UP GUIDELINES FOR GOV’T. AID TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS: * NEITHER PROMOTE NOR HARM RELIGION * AVOID EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT * CAN PROVIDE FREE LUNCHES, HEALTH SERVICES, AND TEXTBOOKS * CAN’T PROVIDE MAPS, PROJECTORS, OR TEACHER SALARIES (ANYTHING THAT CAN BE USED TO TEACH RELIGION)

11. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS) McCOLLUM V. BD. OF ED. (1948) – McCOLLUM V. BD. OF ED. (1948) – BACKGROUND: CHAMPAGNE, IL PUBLIC SCHOOLS ALLOWED KIDS (W/PARENTAL CONSENT) TO TAKE RELIGIOUS CLASSES ONCE A WEEK ON SCHOOL GROUNDS DURING THE SCHOOL DAY DECISION: VIOLATION OF ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

12. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN SCHOOLS) ZORACH V. CLAUSON (1952) – ZORACH V. CLAUSON (1952) – BACKGROUND: N.Y. ALLOWED KIDS TO LEAVE SCHOOL GROUNDS FOR RELIGIOUS CLASSES DURING SCHOOL HOURS (RELEASED TIME) SOME PARENTS SUED DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF N.Y.

13. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (PRAYER IN SCHOOLS) ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) – ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) – BACKGROUND: N.Y. STATE BOARD OF REGENTS CALLED FOR PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 10 KIDS OBJECTED AND PARENTS SUED THE STATE DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF PARENTS PRAYER IN SCHOOL VIOLATES THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

14. 7. S.C. CASES DEALING W/ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (PRAYER IN SCHOOLS) LEE V. WEISMAN (1992) – LEE V. WEISMAN (1992) – BACKGROUND: THE CLASS VALEDICTORIAN GAVE A PRAYER AT COMMENCEMENT. SOME PARENTS SUED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PARENTS. GRADUATION PRAYERS ARE ALSO A VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

15. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE) WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) – WISCONSIN V. YODER (1972) – BACKGROUND: WISCONSIN LAW MADE ALL KIDS GO TO H.S. AMISH OBJECTED (KIDS NEEDED ON THE FARM) DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE AMISH. WISCONSIN CAN NOT FORCE KIDS TO GO TO SCHOOL (VIOLATION OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

16. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASES UPHOLDING FREE EXERCISE) SHERBERT V. VERNER (1963) – SHERBERT V. VERNER (1963) – BACKGROUND: EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT WORKING ON HER SABBATH DAY. EMPLOYER WOULD NOT PAY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF EMPLOYEE. AN EMPLOYER CAN’T DENY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR AN EMPLOYEE FIRED FOR NOT WORKING ON THEIR SABBATH

17. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) REYNOLDS V. U.S. (1879) – REYNOLDS V. U.S. (1879) – BACKGROUND: REYNOLDS (MORMAN) CONVICTED OF POLYGOMY DECISION: SUPREME COURT UPHELD CONVICTION. POLYGOMY ‘HARMS’ SOCIETY AS A WHOLE

18. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) Conscientious Objectors – Conscientious Objectors – BACKGROUND: DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, SOME AMERICANS EVADED THE DRAFT BECAUSE THEY FELT IT VIOLATED THEIR 1 ST AMENDMENT (FREEDOM OF RELIGION) RIGHTS S.C. DECISION: RULED AGAINST OBJECTORS CUZ THEN EVERYONE MIGHT CLAIM TO BE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT OUR GOV’T. FROM RAISING AN ARMY AND PROVIDING FOR A COMMON DEFENSE

19. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASES LIMITING FREE EXERCISE) MINERSVILLE S.D. V. GOBITIS (1940) – MINERSVILLE S.D. V. GOBITIS (1940) – BACKGROUND: JEHOVAH WITNESSES WOULD NOT ALLOW THEIR KIDS TO SALUTE THE FLAG CUZ THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WORSHIP ANY ‘PAGAN’ SYMBOLS. SCHOOL EXPELLED THE KIDS. THE PARENTS SUED DECISION: RULED IN FAVOR OF THE S.D. CUZ SALUTING THE FLAG PROMOTED NATIONAL UNITY WHICH AT THE TIME WAS VITAL TO PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

20. 8. S.C. CASES DEALING W/FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE (CASE PROTECTING FREE EXERCISE) W.V. BD. OF ED. V. BARNETTE (1943) – W.V. BD. OF ED. V. BARNETTE (1943) – BACKGROUND: SAME BACKGROUND AS PREVIOUS CASE EXCEPT IT TOOK PLACE IN W.V. DECISION: OVERTURNED GOBITIS RULING STATING THAT WHILE SALUTING THE FLAG WAS VITAL TO PROMOTING NATIONAL UNITY, IT WAS NOT VITAL TO PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY

21. After the 2 matching sections, you will also be asked your opinion on public school buses transporting kids to parochial schools, prayer in school, and whether or not a conscientious objector should have the right to evade the draft After the 2 matching sections, you will also be asked your opinion on public school buses transporting kids to parochial schools, prayer in school, and whether or not a conscientious objector should have the right to evade the draft