Agostini V. Felton Case Study

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

It’s a reasonable question Hoosiers might ask after my office filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could decide whether the widespread practice of prayer at the start of legislative meetings is constitutional. In analyzing the long history and tradition of opening meetings with prayer, our brief contends that prayers initiated by citizens themselves — including prayers that invoke God, Jesus, Allah and other deities — do not violate the First Amendment prohibition on government establishing religion. Our brief argues government assemblies are not proselytizing if they allow citizen expression of such prayers at the start of meetings. The Texas attorney general co-authored our brief and a bipartisan group of AGs from 21 other states signed it, reflecting the legal importance of the question.

A controversial issue I’ve seen pop up within the past few years, is that of the pledge of allegiance being said in classes. As with prayer in schools, the issue that people have is that they claim it is unconstitutional as the phrase “under god” violates the first amendment right to freedom of religion. The opposing view point argues that it is disrespectful and unpatriotic to not say the pledge, as people have died to protect us. Another point made against the view that it violates the first amendment, is that it only states “under god” not pointing to one specific religion. This debate has been going on since the early 2000’s. several appeals have been filed to the supreme court as seen in Newdow v. U.S. congress. Where Michael Newdow tried

Many people in today?s society are caught taking advantage of the rights they have been given. As the Americans we are, we have rights that pertain to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. These fundamental freedoms have allowed us as American citizens to be able to live our lives without the fear of being arrested or even killed because we speak out. In the 1st Amendment to the Constitution it says that ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging

The First Amendment guarantees U.S citizen with basic freedoms such as religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. In the 2010 Case between Salazar and Buono, The First Amendment was put on trial in the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court examined whether a religious cross, meant to honor World War I Veterans, violated the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. Frank Buono, a former preserve employee, filed the lawsuit to get rid of the religious cross in the reserve permanently, stating that it was built on federal land thus creating a sense of favoritism of one religion over another in government. The favoritism exhibited in the Salazar and Buono Court Case was towards the religion of Christianity, therefore the U.S government did violate the Establishment Clause by promoting Christianity over all other religions.

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for

The United States Government First Amendment States that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore, I believe this artwork should not be able to be shown in a campus environment. There are several reasons why my decision is the best choice on not accepting this piece of work into Francis Marion University. The first reason is this artwork is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States of America.

The federal district court ruled against New York City about the appeal to allow public school teachers to provide instruction to students in parochial schools. The Court interpreted the Establishment Clause as a strict separation between religion and government affairs. The parochial school board, and some parents brought this case to the Supreme Court to seek review. The outcome of the suit concluded with a 5-4 decision. The court stated that money could be funded by federal programs to provide aid to challenged students in parochial schools without defying the Establishment Clause.

An example of the complications involving religious neutrality, and the difficulties that emanate from trying to respect all representations of religion arise in the Chino Valley school board case. School board president, Andrew Cruz became known for, “opening board meetings with an invocation prayer, but also discussing religion and reading from the Bible throughout the meetings,” (Yarbrough). In the Chino Valley case, the display of explicitly Christian messages and scriptures provided grounds for the atheist group, Freedom From Religion Foundation, to sue for violating the United States, and the California Constitution. The issue of neutrality arises in the decision-making of the Court. If the Court rules for the Freedom From Religion Foundation and agrees that the appearance of the explicitly Christian material has no place in a school board meeting, Cruz and his like-minded believers may feel that their right to practice religion has been infringed upon. However, if the court rules for Cruz, those who identify themselves as being in the minority of religious groups may feel that the Court has respected the majority religion over theirs, thereby ignoring their

By the conclusion of this paper the reader should have a better understanding of the Lemon Test as well as its significance. America is a place where you can exercise many rights. One of those rights is the freedom of religion.

Establishment Clause is that government may not compose official prayers to recite as part of a

"The lemon test was started since 1971, it is so named because it was framed in the court 's 1971 in Lemon v. Kurtzman. This case is so common that legal students tend to forget what it involved: a state program to reimburse all private schools, including religious schools, for expenses of textbooks, materials, and, in part, salaries used to teach nonreligious subjects"#. The author believes that there is difficulties of law and states that removing this lemon test would not release all the problems about religion believes that Americans are confronting this days.