The United States of America was founded on the concept of religion in two primary functions. The first was the avoidance and the criminalization of religious persecution. In other words, the nation was a safe haven for individuals who chose to believe differently than others. The second religious concept was the separation of church and state. In this concept, the government was not to promote or force any form of religious studies or rituals as a term of citizenship or equality. However, it is also important to note, that as a term of the law, children are required to receive an education whether from a publicly funded sector, a private school, or homeschooling by their parents or a chosen adult. Although the requirement of education cannot be bypassed, the process of receiving this education allows for options that are specific to the religious needs of the family without interfering or overstepping the separation of church and state.Therefore, when considering the case in Dover, it is important to see these options as the justification for the federal judge’s ruling.
The case presents a differing view on what the term science means versus what the religious sector would like to be taught. Granted, there are religious implications in the theories of Darwinism, but the scientific basis is supported by numerous studies and highly recognized evidence. The information in the theories of Intelligent Design could only be supported by religious theories. Notably, this is not claiming accuracy on either theory, but it is to say that one is scientific whereas the other was religiously based. The court ruling, although it did not support religious freedom for those who wanted to introduce Intelligent Design, did not deny these families the right to teach this theory on their own or in an alternative school option. Instead, the court order effectively prevented a state funded school from teaching a religiously based theory. Simply put, the judge maintained the separation of church and state.
In regards to new information found within this segment, it is incredible, to say the least, how far individual groups will go in order to promote their own agenda. The very people who fought for the separation of church and state now want to rewrite the law to please their own religious beliefs. This is similar to rewriting the Bible under a different name in order to only choose the scriptures that are suitable for the individual group. The law is in place to allow each person to choose. Wanting the government to adhere to one choice over another is essentially asking the judge to change the law completely. Science is science. It is interpretative and evidence based. Religion is based on faith and tradition. It cannot be presented without integrating the faith of the religion. Teaching this faith in a government funded facility would not support the separation of church and state.