Interpretation of the Establishment Clause

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

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,

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

Even when the Constitution establishes a separation between church and state, traces of religion can still be found in public and government environments, such as the Pledge of Allegiance containing the words ‘under God’, American currency having ‘In God we trust’ and other such events and places. Consequently, this prevalence of Christian ideology violates all Americans’ first amendment right to freedom of and from religion and has a negative impact all citizens as it conflicts with their individual beliefs, religious or not.

Board of Education (1947) was a New Jersey case that rose to the Supreme Court and lead to a landmark decision. The Board of Education was reimbursing students for taking public transportation to and from both public and private schools. A taxpayer objected to the use of public funds to reimburse any student attending a religious school. The Supreme Court found the state statute allowing the reimbursement valid, in part because the reimbursement was paid to the parents of the students and not a religious institution, and the payments were available to everyone, not only those attending a religious institution. The decision was significant for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court ruled the establishment clause would now apply to the states. Secondly, Justice Hugo Black, in writing the majority opinion, stated, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.” This is one of the most egregious cases of judicial activism, trying to accomplish what from the bench what the Legislature could not accomplish in 1876. It is particularly troublesome because the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution or any federal statute, and the addition of the phrases, “that wall must be kept high and impregnable” and “we could not approve the slightest breach” drastically changes the context in which it was written. Additionally, since

In Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982), 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.”

NoAny organization or government cannot hide behind the Establishment Clause to suppress religious speech and activities. While Ssome people argued that it was the first time in US history that the Supreme Court created a bad precedent allowing the government to support religion directly with public fund. NoAny religion should not be aided or controlled by the government, because it is essential to separate the government and

The definition of “Establishment” is unclear, “but it is often governed under what we know of as the three-part test set fort by the U.S Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 Us. 602 (1971)” Under this three-part test, it is used to test whether a law is violating the establishment Clause. Under this three-part test, also known as the “Lemon” test, “government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.” Does the law have any secular purposes?

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

Under the establishment clause of the First Amendment, community establishments should preserve an unbiased position on the subject of religious viewpoints and behavior; in other words they ought to uphold a neutral stance. I think the establishment clause divides church from state, but not religion from politics or public life. It permits folks to convey their religious belief into the community while the government is banned from supporting one religion. And also the government is forbidden from supporting non-religion. Therefore, the counties courthouse does violate the establishment clause as they should not display a perceived preference over one or the other.

The United States of America has the most diverse religious population in the world. In places like Iraq, Syria, Israel, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other countries too numerous to mention, countless lives are lost over religious differences. In America, a Protestant can live happily next door to a Jew, who might live across the street from a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Sikh, or even a Humanist! This is in no small way attributed to the fact that the US Constitution’s First Amendment includes what is known as the establishment clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” effectively separating affairs of religious institutions from secular,

Separation of church and state is a defined as, the understanding of the intent, and function of the Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause. The Combination of church and state has been a topic that, many generations have struggled with for centuries. The first amendment of the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law about our religious beliefs, or prohibiting our free exercise of religion” If we put our faith in the constitution to define the founding father’s standpoint of separation of church and state, then we have definitely misinterpreted their stance on religion. Many people believe the reference to separation of church and state is in the original constitution, but the truth is, the references, often conceptualized and misinterpreted as intertwining with our religious freedom, but that is not the truth.

There has been much debate on whether or not the United States has been doing the right thing by keeping church and state as separate entities rather than keeping them entwined as had been the standard for centuries prior to the country’s founding. The list of influences this law could affect is substantial, ranging from the workplace to school functions. Even the way people decorate their offices and houses has come into question from time to time. However, remarkably, every person has a different style of argument and a different way of looking at the available facts. I intend to compare two very different argument styles on both sides of this issue, and how two capable writers use completely different methods of research,