What effect does “School District of Abington Township v.

Schempp” have on school

curriculum?

Craig Lester

Milligan College
 Religion in schools is a volatile and emotional issue. Schools have struggled to follow

constitutional mandates in order to avoid potential lawsuits. This essay will discuss what

affect the landmark case “School District of Abington v. Schempp” (1963) has had on school

curriculum.

The Schempp family brought suit against the State of Pennsylvania because of a state

statute that stated (School District of Abington v. Schempp)

At least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall be read, without comment, at the opening

of each public school on each school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible

reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or

guardian.

The suit claimed their first amendment rights had been violated. The court ruled in favor of

the Schempp family because the first amendment prohibition against “ an establishment of

religion”. In its decision the court gave a test that may be applied. (School District of

Abington v. Schempp)

The test may be stated as follows: what are the purpose and the primary effect of the

enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion then the enactment

exceeds the scope of legislative power as circumscribed by the Constitution. That is to

say that to withstand the strictures of the Establishment Clause there must be a secular

legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

The court also stated

It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of

comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement

of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary
 and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible

or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education,

may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.

This case gives a guideline of how to include biblical studies into classrooms. The purpose

must be secular in nature; you can teach it, but not preach it. Many schools are now including

classes on the Bible. Once again controversy surrounds the subject. Some Christians say that

you’re secularizing the Bible and taking the spiritual meaning out. Secularists say that you’re

violating the separation of church and state by promoting religion. However, there is a

growing consensus and the popularity of the classes in the student body is increasing. Many

organizations from both sides have signed on to the idea. The news media has started to report

on the subject; for example, a Fox News report (2007) from Texas states “The House Public

Education Committee was set late Tuesday to consider — but not vote on — a bill by Rep.

Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the

Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.” In Time magazines recent issue

(2007) the idea was debated. The author concluded, “there should be one faith test. Faith in

our country. Sure, there will be bumps along the way. But in the end, what is required in

teaching about the Bible in our public schools is patriotism: a belief that we live in a nation

that understands the wisdom of its Constitution clearly enough to allow the most important

book in its history to remain vibrantly accessible for everyone.” (Biema, 2007, p. 46)

Even though this case was about school prayer, the Supreme Court made it clear that

study of religion is important and schools can teach religion if it is done in a neutral way. It

seems clear that knowledge of the Bible is essential to students in understanding current issues

as well as its role in history, its influence on literature, and being a well-rounded individual.
Hardly a day goes by when one does not hear a Biblical quote or quotes the Bible themselves

and don’t know its origin. It is referenced on television, movies and in politics. Teaching the

bible is constitutional as long as it is taught in a neutral way. Teachers can feel free to teach

the Bible in any setting, but they must be diligent in ensuring neutrality. Administrators

should include elective classes about the Bible and feel safe in doing so. Care must be taken

to select neutral textbooks and to ensure teachers don’t promote or disparage religion.
Associated Press, (2007, April 4). Texas Lawmaker Wants Bible to Be Used as Textbook in
State's Public Schools. Fox News Channel. Retrieved April 7, 2007 from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263801,00.html

Biema, D. V. (2007, April 2). The Case for Teaching the Bible. Time, 169, 40-46.

School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, et al. v. Schempp et al. (1963) retrieved
April 4, 2007 from http://www.nationalcenter.org/scot63.htm