An Individual's Identity

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

In the First Amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is known as the Establishment Clause, and it has been a controversial topic of many Supreme Court cases throughout America’s history. There are three different methods of constitutional interpretation--textualism, intentionalism, and pragmatism—that have shaped the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is usually interpreted in two different ways: “The Establishment Clause prohibits government actions—federal, state, or local—that promote religion,” and that “The Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a national religion.” There is a common metaphor that accompanies the Establishment Clause know as the “wall of separation.” The Establishment Clause has this “wall” in order to keep the church and state separate. This is a reoccurring theme I have seen develop throughout various court cases. I studied four different cases that made it to the Supreme Court: Everson vs. Board of Education, Lynch vs. Donnelly, Lee vs. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe. During the brief period of me studying these four cases involving the Establishment Clause, I have inferred that pragmatism has indicated the utmost dominance in shaping the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Establishment Clause.

“When "religious freedom" gets invoked in the United States, it can be a mixed bag. It can be a term legitimately be used to describe the right of Americans to express their faith how they choose and associate accordingly, provided they don’t violate the rights of others. Or it could be invoked

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 ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

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. By establishing favoritism towards Christianity the U.S government violated the Establishment Clause. This paper analyzes the rhetorical situation between the governments interference within religion

While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,

As the American society attempted to protect the minority groups in our communities the majority members of society had to join the minority in creating social changes that allowed for the protection of the minority (Miller, 2003). In fighting for the protection of minority members of the American society there, has been laws and constitutional rights that have been put in place that remove discrimination from the workplace, public educational systems, and in the criminal justice system (Greenhouse, 2000). In the 1960’s, the civil rights movement installed the largest amount of legal protections

A topic of great controversy is that of religion and the freedoms that are and are not associated with it. The first amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law of respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The State of Indiana has a Senate Bill that is titled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contains a law that consents individuals and companies to assert that their exercise of religion has been, or is likely to be, substantially burdened as a defense in legal proceedings (Cohn). As this is obviously a commonly debated issue, there are many points for and against the policy.

Identity may be a bit hard to define because of its content its broadness, every country have their own way of building, cooking, praying, playing, joking, fishing, farming, dressing, even speaking.

The United States (US) Constitution establishes the rights and duties for US Citizens and all residents in the country. Regular issues mostly brought before courts are alleged violations of citizens’ rights. To some extent, it is confusing to determine whether a citizen’s constitutional rights have been violated or not; decisions may be appealed simply due to incomprehension. The First Amendment granted freedom of religion, press, speech to every citizen, and established the secular nature of country while prohibiting any religious discrimination in any state (Varone, 2012). For example, it is difficult for employers to accommodate incompatible religious beliefs to work related requirements without violating at a time citizens’ rights and the US Constitution by undermining the state of secularism. In Maryland, a lawsuit filed against a volunteer department for denying a citizen a membership because of his religious beliefs was brought before a US district court in 1983 (Open Jurist, 1994). The Case’s facts, the issues, the rulings, the justification, personal opinion on the ruling, emergency situation that this decision could be cited are the subjects of this essay.

Religious freedom and freedom of speech have been enshrined in American law since the late 18th century. Both are found in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and have been at the center of some of the most important Supreme Court cases in history. From Texas v. Johnson to Lemon v. Kurtzmann, religious freedom and freedom of speech have shaped discourse more so than any other fundamental rights in America. Yet now more so than ever, the issue of religious belief versus freedom of speech has permeated American society. This can most clearly be seen in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a highly controversial legal case making its way through the Supreme Court.

Personal identity is essential in the human experience. Identity is complex and can be broken down into two main groups: introspective identity, and bodily identity. Introspective identity is based off of the groups, mentalities, or beliefs that you align yourself with, and bodily identity is based off of the physical side of yourself. Whether physical or introspective, your identity impacts every action you take. Whether choices ranging from what colors you prefer to which college you want to attend are primarily based off of your introspective identity, which is a combination of both memory and consciousness, physical identity impacts how others perceive you. Consciousness is mainly the awareness of bodily identity as well as continuous introspective identify, while memory is awareness of introspective identity. These two different facets of identity are imperative in the distinction between bodily identity and introspective identity. In means of personal identity introspective identity (which is evident in memory), is essential, while bodily identity (based partially in consciousness) has less credit.

In 2007, according to the Federal Bureau Investigation of the Nation’s law enforcement agencies “there were 9,535 victims of hate crimes; of these victims17.1 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief which totaled to be 1,628 victims of an anti-religious hate crime” (1). Almost ten thousand people were victims of hate crimes alone in 2007. That is something to be alarmed about because part of living in the U.S.A as minority is to have freedom to do and be anything you want and yet we find that you really don’t have that freedom because you get attacked for practicing that freedom. The increasingly rate of hate crimes is soaring that many states like New York, New Jersey and California now have the highest

My purpose is to show my individuality and to express myself. This is for others including myself, to see and to remind us that our identity is very complex.