Talk:Abington School District v. Schempp/This is not an NPOV article, it shouldn't be here. It'd do better on a place like Kuro5hin!

This is not an NPOV article, it shouldn't be here. It'd do better on a place like Kuro5hin!

Firstly, I notice that although the article does mention opponents of this case, it always mentions them in a negative light.

This article makes numerous assertions that need to be fixed.

In February 1963, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a First Amendment case that challenged the way Americans viewed the Supreme Court and the value given to religion by the highest magistrate in the land. In fact, this case is vilified as one that "kicked God and prayer out of the schools." (McWilliams, 1993, p. 170) With its watershed decision in June of that year, the Court found for an Abington Township Unitarian who pursued litigation to purge a 1949 Pennsylvania state law providing for mandatory devotional Bible reading in public schools statewide. [2]

Here's why I don't like this paragraph and think it doesn't represent

The first sentence is just bad, I changed the word "changed" to "challenged" but it still doesn't seem right.
The quotes by McWilliams are totally unnecessary, they can be removed, not only this but the term "vilifed" doesn't seem in the spirit of NPOV writing
The term "Watershed", IMO, is too descriptive. It could be construed as placing the judgement in a favourable light. Hardly a NPOV.
The term "purge" can give negative connotations to the fact that the court ruled in favour of the Unitarian (whose name isn't mentioned, btw). A better term should be found.

After losing at the federal district court level, Pennsylvania lawmakers added a provision to the statute allowing students, with parental consent, to opt out of the religious exercises in hopes of placating Edward Schempp. Not satisfied, Mr. Schempp took the case to court again, charging the alteration did not change the unconstitutional nature of a measure which promoted Christianity at state expense. Again the lower court found for Schempp. Consequently, Abington Township School District appealed to the Supreme Court. Consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by renowned atheist Madalyn Murray, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial 8-1 decision in favor of Schempp (and Murray). (Boston, 1993, p. 106)

Badness:

"placating", could use the term "come to an agreement"
"Not satisfied" - rewrite this
"renowned atheist" - too effusive, it may be that Madlyn Murray is a well-known atheist, but it's totally unnecessary

Although certainly not the first case involving religious expression to reach the Supreme Court, Abington Township School District v. Schempp was the impetus of perhaps the most vituperative debate regarding religion and its place in the US school system up to that time. This case raised thorny constitutional and social issues like no other case preceding it. [4]

Badness:

firstly, why is it even mentioning that it's not the first case involving religious express to reach the Supreme Court? Not necessary.
"perhaps the most vituperative debate regarding religion" - unnecessarily emotive language. Just state the facts, don't describe how bad the debate got. The facts will show this for themselves
"This case raised thorny constitutional and social issues like no other case preceding it.". Regrettably, this sentence relies on the main off-site articles footnote to back it up. The offsite footnote reads: "In recruitment efforts for their atheist organizations, supporters of Madalyn Murray (O'Hair) insist to this day that she single-handedly got Bible reading and prayer kicked out of the schools. Surprisingly, although false and misleading, many Christians and non-believers bought into her embellished claim." Hardly NPOV. The other problem is that it wasn't included in this article! There's a reference here with no footnote, it forces the reader to go to the authors site! Do we want this?

In jurisprudence spanning the previous two decades, the Supreme Court increasingly applied greater portions of the Bill of Rights to the states in light of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Seminal church-state cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut, Everson v. Board of Education and McCollum v. Board of Education comprised important precedents drawn on by the majority in reaching a decision in Abington v. Schempp. [5]

Not too bad.

Schempp's very questioning of prayer in school illuminated the metamorphosis society was undergoing. Although many must have disagreed with local school districts conducting organized prayers and Bible readings, a surprisingly small number expressed objection in an obtrusive manner until well into the twentieth century. Most were convinced, or at least ignorant of information to the contrary, that the United States was a nation founded on Christian principles. Yet, as early as 1890, many states were rolling back mandates of state sponsored devotional exercises in the classroom. (Boston, 1993, p. 105)

Badness:

"Schempp's very questioning of prayer in school illuminated the metamorphosis society was undergoing. " This is just commentary by the author. Wikipedia is not the author's mouthpiece for his views, it's meant to state the fact and just the facts.
"Although many must have disagreed":
- Why must they have disagreed? There's no facts cited that back up this statement
- Uses a weasel term: "many must have". Badness.
"a surprisingly small number expressed objection in an obtrusive manner until well into the twentieth century."
- "surprisingly" is a totally unnecessary word.
- another weasel term: "small number". Who? Give an example of who did this.
"most were convinced" - weasel term (who are most?!?) - "or at least ignorant of information to the contrary" - how do we know this if we don't even know who these ignorant people are?
we could comment on the fact that the U.S. is a nation founded on Christian principles, in fact the article probably should. It doesn't just needs to be written from a NPOV.
another unnecessary reference. Not needed - this isn't meant to be an essay, it's meant to be an encyclopeadia article!

Like four other states, Pennsylvania introduced a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, courts had declared them unconstitutional. (Boston, 1993, p. 101)

Badness:

"Like four other states" - which states?
"optional" is in quotation marks. If the legislation was indeed optional, then this should read that the "legislation was optional but loosely enforced" or something like this. I'm afraid that the bias is really leaking through here

In the case of Pennsylvania's treatment of the issue, at least ten Bible verses were to be read daily by teachers or students in each public school classroom statewide. Any translation or version was appropriate, yet Abington Township consistently utilized the King James Version. Joint recitation of the Lord's Prayer followed the reading in that district's public schools. A particularly authoritarian facet of the law was the provision for termination of any teacher refusing to conduct or participate in the mandated Bible reading.[8] For Maryland, statutes provided for the daily reading of a chapter from the Bible and recitation of the Lord's Prayer in that state's tax-funded schools. [9]

Badness:

the use of the word "yet" seems incongruous here. It seems to be implying that this was a bad thing. Not a good bit of NPOV writing.
"A particularly authoritarian facet of the law was the provision for termination of any teacher refusing to conduct or participate in the mandated Bible reading" - no need for that description in an NPOV article

No matter the impact this case would have on national church-state relations in the future and the sensationalism attached to it by both sides of the debate, the issues raised in Abington v. Schempp were of paramount importance to those involved. It is evident from the suit he launched that Schempp was truly concerned about the spiritual and social impact of state-supported Bible reading and prayer on his children. For a Unitarian, the "religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible [were at the very least] contrary to [his] religious beliefs. . ." [10] Evidently Mr. Schempp was concerned as to the amount of control the school system was exerting over the religious aspect of the children's lives.

Badness:

Editorialising
"No matter the impact this case would have on national church-state relations in the future and the sensationalism attached to it by both sides of the debate, the issues raised in Abington v. Schempp were of paramount importance to those involved." Duh! Someone get the author off the Obvious Pills already! Look, we don't need to be told this, we can work this out ourselves.
"It is evident from the suit he launched that Schempp was truly concerned about the spiritual and social impact of state-supported Bible reading and prayer on his children." Duh again! This is pretty obvious, and is unnecessary commentary to a Wiki article
"Evidently Mr. Schempp was concerned as to the amount of control the school system was exerting over the religious aspect of the children's lives." - evidently? Is the author sure of this fact or not??

The case would bounce from the district court level to the Supreme Court and back again between 1963 and the time when Mr. Schempp originally brought suit in 1958. It was last argued before the Court on 27 and 28 February, 1963. [11] In its first iteration, Schempp's complaint alleged the state-sponsored Bible reading and accompanying recitation of the Lord's Prayer were unconstitutional establishments of religion which prohibited the free exercise thereof for both him and his children. [12]

Badness:

"The case would bounce from the district court level to the Supreme Court and back again between 1963 and the time when Mr. Schempp originally brought suit in 1958." It "bounced"? Balls bounce, cases do not. Much more formal language is needed in a Wiki piece.

At the time, Edward's son, Ellory Schempp was still a student in the school system. In the original litigation, he testified that he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, his immaculate conception, or the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. However, he affirmed that such ideas contrary to his own beliefs were presented to him during his years of attendance at Abington High School. Further, the boy was subject to disciplinary action for his refusal to stand at attention during the recitation of the Lord's Prayer and his request to be excused during the exercise was summarily denied. [13]

Not much really wrong with this paragraph. Can't really fault it.

Also of value to the plaintiff in the first trial was the testimony of Rabbi Dr. Solomon Grayzel who outlined the harm that could come from sectarian presentation of religious works in a school environment. [14] As an example of the implicit sectarian nature of Pennsylvania's prescribed biblical reading, he pointed out that the New Testament's readily apparent anti-Semitism would not bring any real psychological harm to Jewish children if the context of that document was explained. However, if read without comment or question as it was in Pennsylvania schools, Dr. Grayzel testified to the grievous psychological harm he had seen the New Testament produce in Jewish children during similar applications in other venues. [15]

Badness:

"testified to the grievous psychological harm he had seen the New Testament produce in Jewish children during similar applications in other venues" - "to the grievous psychological harm". This really should read something like "testified that he believed the reading of the New Testament produced grievous psychological harm to Jewish children..."

His testimony produced two main points. First, it was safe to assume that if Jewish children could be offended by Bible reading sanctioned by public schools, it was equally safe to suggest that Schempp's children could be detrimentally affected as well. Second, to a Unitarian rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, reading of the New Testament in particular would seem practically blasphemous. This effectively dismissed the defense's contention that the Bible was a common source of morality for all students.

Badness:

these two last paragraphs need to be compressed into one, and have the puffery removed.
this paragraph is the author's opinion of the outcomes of the case. Should it even be here? Not exactly a NPOV.

Assertions of the defense were "diametrically opposite" to those of the plaintiffs. For instance, the defense held that "in substance, . . . reading without comment of ten verses of the Holy Bible at the opening of each school day does not effect, favor or establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, that freedom of religion or of conscience does not include a right to practice one's beliefs or disbeliefs . . . by preventing others from hearing it read in public schools. Further, they contended that such reading was an invaluable aid in the development of the minds and morals of school children that the State had a constitutional right to employ." [16]

If the assertions of the defense were "diametrically opposite" (more unnecessary quoting of 3rd party authors), then the plaintiffs view needs to be quoted directly after the defenses view. Then we can see how the assertions are diametrically opposite.

In defense of forced recitation of the Lord's Prayer, it was felt that such practice did not establish preference for religion or violate the "religious conscience of pupils or parents." The defense also stated that children were free to interpret the bible readings any way they saw fit, if at all, due to the absence of comment. Finally, the defense testified that the plaintiffs were in no way pressed into compulsion in respect to the religious observances, and failed to show any deprivation of constitutional rights. [17]

Badness:

"It was felt" - it was felt by whom? it doesn't say... I'm guessing the author is talking about the defense's argument.

Among those appearing in witness for the school district during the first round of litigation was Dr. Luther Weigle, an expert in the origins of the New Testament, who testified that the Bible was non-sectarian. In cross-examination, however, Dr. Weigle bolstered Edward Schempp's case when he was forced to concede that the Bible could only be construed as such when viewed from within Christian faiths and that the New Testament "conveyed the message of Christians." [18]

"In cross-examination, however, Dr. Weigle bolstered Edward Schempp's case when he was forced to concede that the Bible could only be construed as such when viewed from within Christian faiths and that the New Testament "conveyed the message of Christians." - we don't need to know that the admission "bolstered" the plaintiff's case. This is showing a bias. Get rid of this unNPOV language!

In its decision, the United States District Court of Pennsylvania outlined several salient principles worth further examination. Foremost was the refutation of the defense's implicit claim that the Bible was not an inherently religious work:

Excuse me? Why are we "examining" anything here?!? Wiki pieces aren't meant to examine anything or even display original work. It's not the point of Wikipedia!

In other words, the previous paragraph and the following paragraphs:

Inasmuch as the verses of the Bible address themselves to, or are premised upon a recognition of God, the Bible is essentially a religious work . . . and to refuse to admit its essential character as a religious document would seem to us to be unrealistic. If study of the Bible as an artistic work, a treasury of moral truths, or historical text can be separated from the espousal of doctrinal matters and religiousness, we should find no objection. The daily reading of the Bible . . . required by the legislative fiat .. . buttressed with the authority of the State and, more importantly to the children, backed with the authority of their teachers, can hardly do less than inculcate . . . various religious doctrines in childish minds. Thus, the practice required by the statute amounts to religious instruction [and] . . . it makes no difference that a religious sense of religion may not be instilled. [19]

Secondly, the bench took to task the defense's assertion that children were not forced to participate in the morning religious exercises. Immediately evident to the court was the difference in attitude demanded of the students when the Bible was being read and the Lord's Prayer recited from when normal classroom instruction took place. Additionally, children could not ask to be excused from the proceedings, and faced disciplinary action if they did engage in any real protest of the exercises. Further, counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that the defense ignored the reality of compulsory school attendance required by Pennsylvania state law. This mandatory school attendance placed the students "[directly] in the path of compulsion." [20] The bench was equally unconvinced of any true freedom enjoyed by the children to interpret the Bible readings as they saw fit. Citing the testimony of Dr. Grayzel and the Schempps, the court noted that a broad "spectrum of meanings . . . beginning with literal acceptance. . . [to] vague philosophical generalities condemned by fundamentalists" could result. [21]

can be summarised into:

The court found that the Bible was a work of religious literature, contrary to the claims of the defense. The court also determined that children should not be forced to participate in morning religious exercises and that there was a difference in attitude displayed between when they were read the Bible and when they recited the Lord's prayer. Mandatory school attendance of religious classes was also found to be unacceptable.

I'm sure that can be improved, but this is the sort of trimming that needs to be done here!

In the opinion delivered, the Pennsylvania District Court found the state law sanctioning the reading of the Bible in public schools to be "within the proscription of the First Amendment." Due to the interference with the rights of parents to religiously instruct their children (if at all) and the religious character of the morning exercises in Abington Township schools, the court declared both the statute and the attending practices unconstitutional under both the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. [22]

This is good.

Abington Township appealed to the Supreme Court which remanded the case back to district court levels for further proceedings. [23] In the second round of litigation, the school district countered with an amendment to the statute. The modification allowed students to be excused from participation in the Bible reading and prayer, and repealed the mandate for dismissal of teachers who also refused to participate. [24]

This is also good.

During the school district's appeal, Edward Schempp testified that after careful consideration, he decided not to have his children excused from attendance at the morning ceremonies. He feared his children would be seen as "odd balls" by their teachers and classmates. In addition, standing outside one's homeroom carried with it a stigma of punishment for bad behavior. [25]

This is good.

The District Court did not take the time to review the evidence, nor repeat the facts from the first case. Thus, the second round of litigation was a great deal shorter than the first. Instead, the justices examined the case considering the school district's amendment allowing students the option of non-participation. The defense again attempted to deny the harm found to be imparted upon the Schempps by the Bible reading statute. In addition, the defense called into question the very jurisdiction the federal level court claimed over the case, arguing as it had in the first case, that this was a state issue only. [26]

Get rid of the word "very", otherwise this is good.

The court was not moved to overturn its previous decision. They again held that the statute, even as amended, was unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment, finding it no more defensible than before its amendment. [27]

Make this "The court did not overturn its previous decision". It seems to me to be more impartial.

Thus, after years of trial, the case Edward Schempp had initiated against the school district of Abington Township made its way to the United States' highest judicial body. On the school district's appeal of the tribunal's second ruling, the case would be heard by the Supreme Court as Abington v. Schempp. The Supreme Court apparently agreed to hear the case for one compelling reason: to settle once and for all the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding religion in schools. (White & Zimmerman, p.70)

Badness:

apparently? Is this a statement of fact, the opinion of the author, or the opinion of White & Zimmerman? If it's an opinion, it should be stated differently or completely removed.
why is the article referring to White & Zimmerman? It appears the reference is trying to bolster a particular argument that flow through this entire article. This is not a NPOV.

The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision and found the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional by virtue of the facts in the case, as well as the clear line of precedent established by the Supreme Court. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Thomas Clark stated, "This Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [ in the Establishment Clause ] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . in a series of cases since Cantwell." (Eastland, 1993, p. 151; Davis, 1991, 91)

Badness:

Why is this quoting several books and not the original court transcript?
"and found the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional by virtue of the facts in the case" - isn't this self-evident? What else are they going to make their decisions based on? I don't know if this is a valid comment however, so the paragraph should be changed to:

The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision and found the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional due to the facts of the case as well as the clear line of precedent established by the Supreme Court. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Thomas Clark stated, "This Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [ in the Establishment Clause ] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . in a series of cases since Cantwell." (reference to court document)

What was unexpected, however, were the ideas expressed in the second portion of Justice Clark's opinion written for the majority. The Court's recognition of religious ideals as valuable to the culture of the United States in that opinion are generally not cited by either side of the church-state debate, either by ignorance or purposeful omission, when discussing the case and the impact it had on the United States. His opening thoughts explicitly spelled out that view in past jurisprudence with cases similar to Abington v. Schempp.

Badness:

"What was unexpected, however, were the ideas expressed in the second portion of Justice Clark's opinion written for the majority." Firstly, you can't contrast an "unexpected" decision/pronouncement from the court when there was no talk of an expected outcome in previous paragraphs of this essay. It would be better to say:

The Court recognised religious ideas as valuable to U.S. Culture.

Goodness:

This is an attempt to at least show a balanced view of the court decision. This is good writing because it shows a NPOV.

Look, I could go on (and I may edit this tomorrow), but it's getting late for me. I think I've proved that this article is really an essay written by an author with an axe to grind. It needs serious work!

this gave me no help in writing my paper thanks alot

Ta bu shi da yu 13:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)