City A's City Hall Case Study

1. After viewing the F.A.T. City workshop clips, what did you see as one of the main “take-away” messages?

For the value of the constitutional liberties to each citizen of America, it is a must that the government stresses the freedom to teach, practice or worship based on religion. Throughout the history of America, religion has gradually decreased in importance although it is needed more now than ever. Pursuant to the first amendment to the constitution, the country must honor the values of its people. In the article “Religious Exemptions, Formal Neutrality, and Laicite” Frederick Mark Gedricks asserts that, “The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that neither the national government nor the states may enact a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion” (Gedicks). If chosen to live in a country where the government has stated the protection of religion, it is a must that they stand by that ruling. Providing the protection of religious freedom is vital to maintaining the integrity of constitutional liberties as citizens defend their own beliefs. Also, with the many disagreements of religious acts, Judge Roy Moore and his allies’ belief of the religious commitment of the country was undermined once Moore chose to place a 5, 280 pound granite monument in the state’s judicial building in Montgomery in July of 2001. His act placed disregards to his religion in which he was denied of his own beliefs. In the article, “Religion and Civil Rights”,

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

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,

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

The original proposal for the site was four skyscrapers and it was approved by the City of Miami, however in 2008 with the recession the project was cancelled.

Case: In the late 1950's the New York State Board of Regents wrote and adopted a prayer, which was supposed to be nondenominational. The board recommended that students in public schools say the prayer on a voluntary basis every morning. In New Hyde Park Long Island a parent sued the school claiming that the prayer violated the first amendment of the constitution. The school argued that the prayer was nondenominational and did not attempt to "establish or endorse" a religion and thus that it did not violate the establishment clause.

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

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.

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is the “largest public housing authority in the nation” (Developments, 2015). In existence since 1934 (About NYCHA: NYCHA at 70, 2015), NYCHA is a low to moderate income public housing initiative consisting of 328 developments throughout all five boroughs of New York City. More than 400,000 residents benefit from these developments through the receipt of not only apartments but additional services provided by each development and New York City overall. Over recent years the NYCHA developments have been experiencing a reduction in government funding, forcing the organization to re-evaluate strategies addressing maintenance of old buildings (About NYCHA, 2015).

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

In a podcast on his church and Eminent Domain, “a New York church's founder, Reverend Fred Jenkins, says the town of North Hempstead in 1998 exercised eminent domain and took the sanctuary as part of plans for a shopping and housing complex. Jenkins says that was a blow to his congregation.” Why does one church even matter? Are the shopping and housing complex not going to directly benefit the public as people shop or look for residences? Jenkins thinks otherwise, explaining, “We'd been feeding people that were hungry and paying for their lights when their lights was out and buying Pampers for their kids when their babies was in need. If you put an apartment building there, nobody in that apartment building would do the same thing for the people that the church will do.” The church not only represents an institution of faith and prayer; it represents a home that people can turn to in times of struggle. Which should be more supported: the close-knit feeling of community that the church provides, or the economic profit by way of a mall and apartment building? Can or should religious liberty ever be sacrificed for economic redevelopment? As Mr. JOHN MAUCK (Attorney to Jenkins) puts it, “The ability to have a place to assemble, to come together, is integral to almost every faith. It's fine to say you can believe what you want in your head, but free exercise of religion really involves meeting

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.

2.) The case was brought to state court by Thomas Van Orden over a monument that had the Ten Commandments engraved upon it. The monument was given to the Texas government and governor Rick Perry. The monument was erected between the State Capitol and the State Supreme Court. Van Orden argues that the monument violates the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause, which is the one of the first clauses in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, states that the United States Congress should not enact any law in respect to any religion.

After almost four years, the City of Takoma Park has been on an ongoing debate with the Takoma Park-Silver Spring Cooperative grocery store to pursue the construction of the Takoma Junction city-owned parking lot in order to revitalize the commercial area.