The Idea of an Essay, Volume 2

138 a secular purpose, (2) have a primary purpose that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” Brennan found the requirement of equal treatment between these two theories fails every section of the Lemon Test, making this decision highly unconstitutional (Armenta & Lace, 2010, p. 77). Courts prioritize the constitutionality of schools higher than the appeasement of the majority, thus the rulings in these cases override student or community protest toward the teaching of evolution or advocacy for intelligent design. The interpretation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states the United States cannot pronounce a national religion, has caused governments to focus on religious toleration versus pleasing the majority. Regardless of popular vote, schools must remain religiously neutral. Courts do not consider this an infringement on an individual’s freedom of religion because evolution is religiously neutral and “the free exercise of religion is not accompanied by a right to remain insulated from scientific findings incompatible with one’s religious beliefs” (Moore, Jensen, & Hatch, 2003, p. 768-769). As a result, teachers cannot refuse to teach evolution or use their freedom of speech to teach intelligent design regardless of their own personal beliefs or the beliefs of others. In John E. Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, the court decided a school could either reassign or dismiss a teacher who refuses to teach evolution. Because evolution is not a religion, the teaching of such material does not infringe on a teacher’s freedom of religion. In Webster v. New Lenox School District #122 (1990), the court stated that the changing of curriculum by a teacher to include intelligent design advocates religion. Because teachers are governmental employees, their freedom of speech becomes limited, as their speech reflects back onto the institution. Thus, the First Amendment does not give teachers the right to teach intelligent design, and, when they do, they defy constitutional values (Moore, Jensen & Hatch, 2003, p. 768-770). For a similar reason, the government can finance the purchase of evolutionary textbooks but not textbooks supporting intelligent design. In Willoughby v. Stever, William Willoughby protested the use of tax payers’ money to fund “secular humanism” through the support of the theory of evolution. To Willoughby’s dismay, the