Establishment Clause Vs Free Exercise Clause

The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

Explain the tension between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the First amendment. Support your explanation with at least one example. First we must understand the purpose of each of these clauses of the First Amendment. A common misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause is that it safeguards individual rights. In reality the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to limit the government’s power in respect to legislating on matters that deals with "respecting an establishment of religion.". The Free Exercise Clause has only a sole purpose, the safeguarding of individual rights, specifically related to religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment I, U.S. Constitution).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for e redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to

The Equal Protection Clause derives from the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifies “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…” As a part of the Reconstruction Amendments, the aforementioned clause was meant to ensure racial equality in the Reconstruction Period and has been applied successfully against the affirmative action. Introduced in United States v. Carolene Products Co., the strict scrutiny has been applied to the cases, in which a fundamental constitutional rights have been infringed or a government action applies to a suspect classification (i.e. race, religion, national background). Specifically, in regards to Bakke v. Regents of University of California, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) concluded that, considering that the University of California, Davis received several Caucasian applicants for its special admission program in 1973 and 1974 and that none of the applicants received the admission to the program since the start, the program unfairly administered in favor of minority races and, therefore, violated the rights of the white applicants under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, from Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled under strict scrutiny that, the affirmative action imposed by the University of Texas School of Law (“the law school”) violates the Fourteenth Amendment since neither the law school nor the University of Texas system has proved a proof of

Our first amendment to the United States Constitution reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and the amendment was put in place to protect former slaves and their rights in life. The most important part of the amendment reads, “No state shall ‘deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person… the equal protection of the laws.’” This simple statement has one of the most profound and incredible parts of the United States today. The equal protection of the laws show that there must be equal treatment for all citizens regardless of race, class, or gender. Although there has been many racial events happening after this amendment was passed this clause still stands to today and has helped shape the United States for the better. Having this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment protects the ‘little guy’ and makes sure that everyone has the same ability to do whatever everyone else is doing.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    The fourteenth amendment states that no state can deny to a person the equal protection of the laws. This means every person should be treated as equals, however this is not always the case. Members of the LGBTQ+ community have been constantly discriminated against which for all of

Much of the opposition on same-sex marriage comes directly from religious teachings on marriage and homosexuality. Islam, for example, officially prohibits same-sex marriage, whereas Reform Judaism has long permitted same-sex couples to celebrate their commitment. The Roman Catholic Church opposes same-sex marriage. A lot of religious debates argue using the undeniable fact that there are readings and quotes from the Bible that are intolerant of homosexuality. These passages include: