Majority Opinion - Case Study Example

? Majority opinion Majority opinion The majority opinion, as held by Chief Judge Lively is an issue of high contention. There appears to be a misinterpretation by the plaintiffs over the intentions of having all the students read collectively from the same series of books. The exposure of students to the content of the books did not amount to compelling them to adhere to the religious views presented. By a mere requirement that the students should read from the series of Holt books, it did not amount to indoctrination or the promotion of the religious views presented by the books (Suber, 1987). Since there was no evidence to the effect that students were required to profess the religious views presented in the books, then the plaintiffs in this case had no good basis of claiming that the requirement to read from the books amounted to the violation of the constitutional rights of the students and their parents. The basis that would well serve to make the requirement unconstitutional is if the students were compelled to do something that is against their religious belief, such as profess the religious views presented by the books (Shelly, 1994). The students were not required by any means to affirm the religious views presented or even practice such views. There was an assumption on the sides of the plaintiff that having the religious vies which was in contrast to their own belief presented in the form of poetry or fiction, entitled the children to believe in them. To indicate lack of consistency in the arguments presented by the plaintiff, one of them, Mrs. Frost held that it was all right to have their children taught other religions and philosophies, as long as such teachings did not undermine her religious beliefs, or the children had to be instructed on the error of the other religion (Fish, 1999). This serves to show that the plaintiffs believed their religion was the only one acceptable and thus, could be taught without the indication of its errors, while the other religions and philosophies had to underline this fact. This is an erroneous view of the intentions of the education system, in that it seeks to create wider knowledge, and thus cannot be limited to one religion. Another major aspect that offers a support for the majority opinion by chief judge Lively is the fact that there appears an observed tendency of the plaintiff to interpret virtually everything theologically (Suber, 1987). Mrs. Frost holds that everything have to be interpreted in the Biblical perspective, arguing that there is no possible way, in which issues such as evolution and telepathy could be taught, without violating her religious beliefs. In the plaintiffs’ assumption, every issue has to be presented either in a way supporting or contrasting the Biblical perspective. Such an assumption is erroneous, in that in teaching, the issues can be presented in a neutral way, where the interpretation is left to the individual students to make, based on their beliefs (Fish, 1999). Thus according to the plaintiffs, certain subjects had to be done away with in order to satisfy their religious perspective. However, this would be a violation of the constitutional requirements, in that it would amount to aligning the school curricular towards a certain religious perspective, which is prohibited by the constitution. The reference of the court to two cases of precedence was erroneous. To support this opinion by chief judge Lively, in the case of Ms. Sherbert and that of Mr. Thomas as referred to by the court, there were some elements of compulsion (Shelly, 1994). In both of these cases, the individuals were compelled to do things that were contrary to their religious beliefs. Thus, the act of the court to construe the elements of the two cases to mean similar to those of this case is erroneous, since there is no evidence of the plaintiffs being compelled to do anything that is contrary to their religious beliefs. In agreement with this opinion, judge Kennedy held that there lacked unconstitutional burden in this case, as the students were not required to affirm the religious views as presented by the books (Shelly, 1994). since there was no requirement that the students engage in the performance or non-performance of any religious practices presented by the books, then, this did not amount to the compulsion by the government to engage in a conduct that violated the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs. Thus, in this case, there was no element of unconstitutional burden on the student free exercise of religion (Suber, 1987). The case also presents another point of error by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs desire that their children be taught all necessary skills to see them advance in the modern world. However, they are in opposition to their children being taught certain subjects that they refer as offending to their religion. These two objectives cannot be achieved under the Tennessee laws. The laws require that if there is a desire to be excused from exposure to certain ideas or subjects, then the students can be taken to either a private or a church school, which have no obligation to follow the required public school curriculum (Fish, 1999). Thus, in this case, the court was in error, by giving an order to the effect that the student be exempted in some school programs that they perceive offensive as per their religious beliefs. With the option offered by the laws to access an education that would prepare their student for the life in the modern society without offending their religious beliefs, then, the plaintiffs ought to have adhered to such laws. Thus, the majority opinion in this case is justified. In this case, the district court failed to differentiate between the actions that could amount to an interference with the free exercise of religion and those ones that simply lead to the exposure to contrasting ideologies and attitudes (Shelly, 1994). The fundamental basis for such verdict as granted by the district court was that, coercive and compulsion intent be displayed in the actions prevailing in this case, which did not occur. The attitude held by the plaintiff regarding the ideas and issues contrary to their religious beliefs are against the requirement of an education system. To have a society that is democratic, then the divergent views and issues, both religious and political needs to be tolerated, though with sensitivity to the feelings, attitudes and beliefs of those in opposition with the same (Fish, 1999). In this case, the attitudes and the perspectives held by the plaintiffs simply serve to undermine the freedom and tolerance of divergent views and perspectives. The role of the school is to bring into convergence all the issues and ideologies that creates knowledge and enhances the preparation of the students to live in a modern and democratic society. Thus, with such perspectives as held by the plaintiffs, such objectives of schools would not be achievable (Suber, 1987). There was also an element of misunderstanding by the plaintiff, in that they observed the requirement to read the series of books as an attempt to make them accept the religious views of other religions, on an equal basis with the religion they held. The intention of such content in the books was not meant to make all religions equal nor have any of the religions perceived as dominant over the others. Rather, the intention was to create in the student the attitude of an ideal society, which tolerates the divergent views of others and keeps theirs principle beliefs and attitudes. On the contrary, the attitude held by the plaintiffs is that of undermining other religions and philosophies, by perceiving theirs as the correct one (Shelly, 1994). Thus, in support of the majority opinion, the plaintiffs’ attitude undermines the intent of divergent views tolerance, as provided for by the law. The plaintiff, Mrs. Frost, in her evidence said that she did not like a situation where her children would be required to make critical judgments, in a situation where, the bible already provided the answer (Suber, 1987). In her misinterpretation, since some exercises would require students to make such decision, the assumption was that it compelled students to such decision making, yet there was no evidence to the effect that the students were prohibited to give their religious perspective. Thus, her attitude towards the exercises as presented by the books serves to undermine the essence of diversity in thinking and critical reasoning, by only advocating for the students to uphold the Biblical perspective and answers to issues. By requiring a public school to advance such perspective, then the other religions and philosophies would be undermined, a practice that is against the constitutional requirement (Shelly, 1994). The plaintiffs objected to the reading and interpretations from a different perspective that would be given by other students, who had diverse views to the Biblical perspective. Such an attitude is contrary to the constitutional requirements of divergent views tolerance. Thus, the majority view as held by chief judge Lively is justifiable, in that it aligns the legal principles in the case as per the constitutional provisions. References Fish, St. (1999). The trouble with principle. Harvard University. Shelly, B. (1994). Religious Parents, Secular Schools: A liberal Defense of an illiberal education. Review of politics, 56: 1. Suber, P. (1987). “Mozert v. Hawkins City Board of Education.” Department of Philosophy. U.S.A: Earlham College. Read More