Depends upon how one look/define developed
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Court found that, although the Louisiana legislature had stated that its purpose was to "protect academic freedom", that purpose was dubious because the Act gave Louisiana teachers no freedom they did not already possess and instead limited their ability to determine what scientific principles should be taught. Because it was unconvinced by the state's proffered secular purpose, the Court went on to find that the legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute".[1]
SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional to teach creationism in public schools.
It matters because of exactly what the Constitution says. And it says nothing about teachers teaching.
This ruling involves legislation that REQUIRED creationism to be taught.
Wrong. The Supreme Court has made no such ruling. The Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional for a legislature to REQUIRE that creationism be taught in public schools.
sigh...
Cite your source.
Cite your source.
You are misinterpreting the ruling. Creationism can be taught but not in a science class.
(wiki)
In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled on Epperson v. 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. Aguillard. 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. Dover Area School District in 2005.
The issue has remained contentious, with various US states debating, passing, or voting down alternative approaches to creationism in science classrooms. There is no bar in US law to creationism being taught in civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religion classes.
Scopes lost.
The Court ruled creationism cannot be taught as science.
Is there anyone here who doesn't have the 1st Amendment memorized?
And your own lack of honesty shows in how you decided to edit my comment and wrongfully present my argument.
Teaching about religion is not illegal, when done contextually, in the correct class. Teaching religious doctrine, any religious doctrine as science is not allowed.
There would be a "mandate" for students to learn it, to learn that religious belief if a teacher taught creationism. That violates those students' rights.
Teaching all of those things is fine in an elective religious studies class. I had a class like that in both high school and in college.
So then teachers could teach anything they want, so long as a law in their state does not prohibit it, according to this logic? And the SCOTUS rulings only apply to being required to teach certain religious things? If true, then teachers could teach Sharia law as part of a law lesson or teach that the Titans built humans to be slaves and their god children freed us for their own amusements as part of science and/or history as well.
Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.arstechnica.com
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before but I searched & found nothing recent, so here is the news:
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.
ast week, the Arkansas state House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend state education law to allow teachers in public schools to teach creationism as "a theory of how the earth came to exist." As it stands, the act promotes blatantly unconstitutional behavior as made clear by a precedent set in a 1982 case involving the Arkansas Board of Education. Despite that, the bill passed 72-21, and it already has a sponsor in the state Senate.
The body of the bill is mercifully short, consisting of two sentence-long amendments to the existing Arkansas code:
Enter your email to get the Ars Technica newsletter
But those two sentences are enough to land teachers and their local school system in a world of trouble, in that the permission given runs afoul of a lot of legal precedent. In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.
Advertisement
That ruling wasn't appealed, meaning the legal precedent only applied to Arkansas. But later in that same decade, a similar case from Louisiana made it to the Supreme Court, and it reached the same conclusion. The prohibition against creation science has applied nationally since.
Creationism and science do not belong in the same sentence.Arkansas House passes unconstitutional bill putting creationism in schools
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.
I'm surprised this hasn't been posted before but I searched & found nothing recent, so here is the news:
Despite unanimous Democratic opposition, the bill moves on to the Senate.
ast week, the Arkansas state House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend state education law to allow teachers in public schools to teach creationism as "a theory of how the earth came to exist." As it stands, the act promotes blatantly unconstitutional behavior as made clear by a precedent set in a 1982 case involving the Arkansas Board of Education. Despite that, the bill passed 72-21, and it already has a sponsor in the state Senate.
The body of the bill is mercifully short, consisting of two sentence-long amendments to the existing Arkansas code:
Enter your email to get the Ars Technica newsletter
But those two sentences are enough to land teachers and their local school system in a world of trouble, in that the permission given runs afoul of a lot of legal precedent. In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.
Advertisement
That ruling wasn't appealed, meaning the legal precedent only applied to Arkansas. But later in that same decade, a similar case from Louisiana made it to the Supreme Court, and it reached the same conclusion. The prohibition against creation science has applied nationally since.