Deleted user
Sep 18, 2014
A direct violation of the establishment clause and properly ruled upon. The purpose is blatantly to directly promote these three religions. Justice Reed’s argument against limits the interpretation of the establishment clause to such a small extent that it might as well not exist.
– L. Woody Stanfield
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user
Sep 17, 2014
This case seems pretty straightforward. No fed funds to aid the promotion of religion. But, can religion really be completely pulled out of all government funded things? I remember having a project in a CPS school where we learned abut world religions and each person presented on a different religion and it kind of helped me be more aware of how people are different in a good way and be respectful of their religion. This is very different though, yet similar.
-Gabriela Bedolla
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user
Sep 17, 2014
I completely agree with the ruling in this case. The use of public funding to teach religion in a public school is a big no no. The other issue I have is that they chose only 3 religions to focus on. This is problematic because then they are clearly favoring those religions and making the many other religions out there seem less important.
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user
Sep 17, 2014
I agree with this ruling and the majorities opinion. However, I kind of understand maybe were Justice Reed was coming from. I definitely enjoy listing about religion in a historical sense because it is totally important, current, and intertwined within the history of civilization.I love history and politics like any good nerd. On the other hand, I totally agree that a school should not promote or discourage one from the other. It is very important I would say, from a historical aspect that religion be discussed in schools event thought they are taxpayer and federally funded. -mortimer
Reply
Comments above copied from original document
Deleted user
Deleted user
Sep 17, 2014
I found this short video that gives an informative summary of the case.

Stephanie Martinez
Reply
Deleted user
Deleted user

Thanks Stephanie, that was super informative.
Sep 17, 2014
•
Delete
Comments above copied from original document
Kevin Lyles
Deleted user
Deleted user
Sep 17, 2014
This case seems to reflect a direct governmental involvement with religion. The school board directed publicly funded schools and teachers to profess and promote religion and students were being excluded if they chose not to participate. It does not seem surprising that the ruling was one sided, with the exception of Justice Reed, as this so clearly violates the establishment clause. -L. Trujillo
Reply
Comments above copied from original document