By: Christian Smith
January 30, 2012
A Paper presented to Dr. Brown for
YOUT 350-001
Legal Cases and Campus Ministry Paper
Smith
Smith
Summary of Case #1
Tammy Kitzmiller, v. Dover Area School District happened in 2005. This case was
brought before the court because there were parents who wanted to have both Intelligent Design
and Evolution taught in the public school classroom. The plaintiffs and the defendants for the
case were parents of the students who resided in the Dover Area school district. The final ruling
for this matter was that it was unconstitutional for the school district to teach both to the students.
The court ruled that it was be unlawful to teach a religious belief to students and that by teaching
a belief the students might look for answers somewhere else other than in a science book.1
Personal Response
My personal response to this case is first sadness at how we look at what is right and or
wrong in today’s world. I cannot believe that courts would justify the teaching of evolution,
which it a theory, but will not allow for the teaching of creationism which is a proven teaching
that has survived both time and scrutiny. It is so surprising to me how they can overlook this
aspect of creationism and so wholeheartedly follow after and agree to the teaching of evolution.
Ministry Applications
The main ministry application that is available out of this case is the need for students
that already believe in creationism and in Christ to start living it out among their peers. If
students will simply stand up for what they believe in and respectfully argue what is true and
what is not with their teachers than it would be obvious to other students that something about
evolution is false. Through this action many students could start to ask questions and hopefully
one day come to know about Christ and His creation.
1
Conservapedia, “Tammy Kitzmiller, v. Dover Area School District (2005),
http://conservapedia.com/Kitzmiller_vs._Dover_Area_School_District, (accessed Jan. 28, 2012)
Smith
Summary of Case #2
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was a case that appeared in court in 2004.
In this case the father of a daughter took the school district to court because the daughter had to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning before classes would start. The father, an atheist,
was biologically the girl’s father, but had given up custody to the mother of the child. The mother
of the child went to court and filed that the father had not right to say what his daughter could or
could not recite because he was no longer a legal guardian of the child. The court reviewed the
case and sided with the mother because of the father’s lack of legality to the daughter.2
Personal Response
My personal response to this is overall happiness that the mother stood up for what was
right and fought in court for her daughter. On the other hand I am sad that the courts would even
allow a case to come before them that has to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. I believe that the
Pledge should stay as it is now because it is a Pledge to our country and to change it would not
only be ungodly, but it would also be changing a part of America’s history over hurting people’s
feelings.
Ministry Applications
The only ministry application that is available from this court case is to look at what is
being taught to the youth in America. If the youth in America are being taught the right things
from youth pastors then they will take this information home to their parents and hopefully be
able to share the Gospel with their parents. It is also important that the church reaches out to
parents and tries harder than ever before to get parents into church so they may learn the truth.
Summary of Case #3
2 Legal Information Institute, “Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow” (2004),
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html, (Accessed Jan. 29, 2012)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Smith
Morse v. Frederick happened in 2006. In this case a student was suspended from school
by his principle for holding up a sign at a school sponsored event that read “Bong hits for Jesus”.
This message refers to that of marijuana smoking and the principle quickly suspended the student
for the message he was conveying. The student took the matter to court and demanded he had
free speech for this issue. The court ruled otherwise and said that the principle was only trying to
keep the school from being influenced by the banner. The court decided that the banner implied
for students to smoke marijuana and this was against the school code of conduct.3
Personal Response
My personal response to this is anger. There are many things about this court ruling that
really upset me. To begin with, where are the student’s parents at while this situation is going on?
Also where is the local church at when this happens? The local church needs to be involved
enough in schools that they know when things like this are happening so that they can intervene
and possible talk to students before they make mistakes like this one. Another thing that I wonder
is why the student was even allowed to bring this case before a court? Marijuana smoking is
illegal and this case should have never been allowed to happen.
Ministry Application
The only ministry application that is available for this particular case is for the local
church to be more involved within the school campus. This case could have been averted if the
local church had sought after the students in the local school and got the students involved with
the local youth group and also with fellow Christians who attend the same school as they attend.
3 U.S. Supreme Court Media, “Morse v. Frederick” (2006), http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-
2009/2006/2006_06_278, (Accessed Jan. 30, 2012)
Oyez, “Morse v. Frederick” (2006), U.S. Supreme Court Media,
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278, Internet, (Accessed Jan. 30, 2012)
Conservapedia, “Tammy Kitzmiller, v. Dover Area School District” (2005), Conservapedia,
http://conservapedia.com/Kitzmiller_vs._Dover_Area_School_District, Internet, (accessed Jan.
28, 2012)
Cornell University Law School, “Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow” (2004), Legal
Information Institute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html, Internet,
(Accessed Jan. 29, 2012)
Smith
