The document discusses the Supreme Court case 'Abington School District v. Schempp' (1963), which questions the appropriateness of prayer and Bible reading in public schools, highlighting concerns about religious neutrality, coercion, and the need for secular legislative purpose. It distinguishes between teaching religion and teaching about religion, emphasizing that objective study of religion can coexist with the First Amendment. The document also references the 'Lemon Test' from 'Lemon v. Kurtzman' (1971), which outlines criteria for government involvement with religious practices.

1. Teaching Religion
Abington School District v.
Schempp (1963)

2. Why pray and read the Bible in
school?
• Cold War
• Better student behavior
• Morality

3. Is reading the Bible religious?
• Jewish critique: It’s offensive to Jews
• Offensive to atheists
• “Non-sectarian” but Christian

4. Neutrality
• What are the purpose and the primary
effect of the enactment?
– Cannot be advancement or inhibition of
religion.
– There must be a secular legislative purpose .

5. Teaching Religion vs.
Teaching About Religion
“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.”

6. Religious vs. Secular
Religious
• Prayer/Bible reading
• Indvidual
• Private
• State is neutral
• No coercion
Secular
• Teaching about religion
• State
• Public
• State is active
• Coercion

7. Lemon Test
(Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971)
The statute must…
1. not result in an “excessive government
entanglement” with religious affairs.
2. not advance nor inhibit religious practice.
3. Have a secular legislative purpose.

8. Is yoga religious?