Should The Government Sanctioned Religious Establishments Of Our Day?

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 Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592), is a bill that would correct this and allow relief funding to go these organizations. So far the bill has passed the House by a large margin. The bill is also being criticized by it’s opponents for it’s use of taxpayer money to help tax-exempt organizations as well as violating the principle of separation of church and state.

Hamburger, Philip. "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN PHILADELPHIA." Emory Law Journal 54, no. 4 (Fall2005 2005): 1603-1631. Legal Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed March 2, 2015).

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

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,

Application/Analysis: The court agrees that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens from fraud, but in this instance, the court takes issue with the fact that a sole authority, the secretary of the Public Welfare Council, can decide what is considered a valid religion. The court states that the secretary “is empowered to determine whether the cause is a

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.

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)

History shows a pattern of change in relation to religious involvement of governmental affairs. As religion becomes less a part of American life, the court develops new laws to accommodate our new society. Look to the communities we live in presently and ask yourself if the American people are facing oppression of religious freedom, a freedom listed in our Constitution under the First Amendment. This spirals into an abyss of politics. Is same-sex marriage a personal matter or a public one? Is the Republican Party fair in opting to end abortion? Should a woman have contraceptive included in her health insurance plan despite the religious views of her employer? This is one of the areas in which

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

these are only a few of many examples of a broken outdated system which intertwines both church and state,

The economy is the strength of a nation it is the provision to finance an obstacle, however, that money also travels to churches to benefit the people and the building. Tax money is given to the churches to expand, yet money is utilized for personal gain. The "Massachusetts Constitution" implies “such moneys shall never be appropriated to any religious sect,” (Massachusetts, Article 29) churches have requested for money and deceived the people and implicated false information, nonetheless, a church is where God’s home associates and people will be giving money.

In many states, the state constitution or laws allow "institutions of purely public charity" to escape the payment of ad valorem and other taxes. The reasons articulated for such exemption vary but usually depend on the theory that these institutions provide services to truly needy individuals free (or nearly free) of charge or that they provide services the government would be required to provide if the institutions

Scanning the internet the other day was this derogatory article concerning mega churches stereotyped as big business, assessing how thousands of people give huge amounts of money. The article failed to mention how God blesses His people with such huge amounts of money in order for them to return huge amounts of money. Churches need to be big and rich for help people, and when people are helped the church cannot be big enough.

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.