4 Comments

1. McColum v. Board of Education
   333 US 203 (1948)
   Facts: “Release time” refers to a time set aside by schools for religious teachings (taught and hired by instructors outside of the school). This was not mandatory for the students however, McColum (atheist) said her son received backlash for not participating. She claimed that this was a violation of the Establishment Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause.
   Question: Was the “release time” of violation of both of these amendments?
   Answer: yes
   Reasoning: The property that these teachings took place on was paid for by tax-payers. The relationship between the schools and religion was too close and brought to question the separation of church and state. This was encouraging religious participation. Note that Justine Stanley dissented and felt that it depended upon your interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

   Reply

2. The documentary about this film breaks my heart because of what the McCollum family went through. People were so harsh towards this family because they didn’t believe in the same things as everyone else. Mrs. McCollum was an atheist and did not want her child participating in the religious classes. The classes were not mandatory but there was extreme backlash if one did not participate. The schools were in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

   Reply

3. I think it is completely wrong for any person in charge of public education to administer a daily prayer regardless if it speaks to one denomination or not. It should have never even been allowed for an entire school district to adopt this schedule.

   Reply

4. 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

   Reply