God On Trial Summary

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 future of our country recites these words every day before starting class, in many countries among the nation. There is a reason why these words are recited. They express the deeply rooted values and patriotism of American people. In 1954, the phrase “under God” was added to the American Pledge of Allegiance, and it became the main source of many court cases throughout the years. Nowadays, these two simple but controversial word have caused a legal tangle with many court cases that mostly end up at the Supreme Court. For the most part, the debates revolve around the constitutionality of these words. The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" Many people seem to think that the addition of the phrase to the American Pledge of Allegiance is counteracting the Establishment Clause. Nowadays, there have been many cases where it has been requested for these two words to be removed from the Pledge. The Pledge was made to unite all Americans together, in order to fight

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”,

When discussing the intertwining of church and state; soul liberty and freedom from religious belief, we must recognize that freedom and faith were at one point complementary ideas. Faith was once the foundation for freedom and vice versa. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights." With these words from the Declaration of Independence, our founding fathers set up their vision of what this country would come to be. Among those rights, which are deemed “inalienable”, is the right of religious liberty. (Neumann, 1990: p. 241)

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,

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.

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.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

In the United States Constitution, 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Gold). Historically, as demonstrated in cases such as Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as the government in general, has well-upheld this amendment, but starting sometime in the second half of the 20th century, they are slowly embracing it less and less, as demonstrated in cases such as Texas v. Johnson. The recent hostility towards the First Amendment demonstrates that its rights

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.

Many people believe this phrase, “separation of church and state”, can be found in the United States Constitution; however, this phrase originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. While some people believe this was a secular phrase, other people believe it has more of a religious viewpoint. There are controversial issues that violate this phrase, which includes the presidents using a Bible and saying the phrase “so help me God” during their inauguration ceremony. Another time which violates the phrase “separation of church and state” is during court when someone has to be sworn in to the stand by placing their hand on the Bible. While church and state is best kept separate, one might ask themselves, why Thomas Jefferson, the man who created this controversial phrase, might still show countless religious efforts during his presidency that would violate his own phrase, if he intentionally meant it to be a complete “wall” between the

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.

The capability to speak openly and practice the religion of your choice has existed since the birth of the United States of America. Yet in the past decade, more people than ever have caused us to question which first amendment right should be protected more; freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Such events where the two rights are pinned against each other, both seeking to sense a feeling of supremacy, have proved to lead to conflict and even bloodshed.

“…one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” And so finishes the Pledge of Allegiance for the United States of America. Whether or not a person would wish to identify our nation as a Christian one, there is certainly no doubt that the very oath that binds a person into serving it includes serving God. As it follows, many of our laws are centered around our understanding of the Bible, and the morality that can be gleaned from it. Even in our modern time, where the lines are becoming more and more blurred, eighty-three percent of Americans still identify themselves as Christian. A common national ideology is that our country has a favored nation status with God; thus it is our responsibility to ‘sow the

Its impossible to reflect on the origins of evil without bringing up the concept of free will. God created man with this idea of choice; the choice to believe and obey, or the choice to disobey. It was this free will that allowed Adam and Eve to fall from their initial glory and introduce evil and suffering into the world. We can justify a large amount of sustained suffering by acknowledging that it actually benefits us and is not incompatible with God's loving nature. We learn lessons both physically and spiritually that allows us to grow and mature according to God. Some suffering is used to spark revival or for a great advancement in his kingdom, cause after all we're