The Pros And Cons 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

Decision: In 1985, the principal and superintendent of Westside High School (a secondary school in Omaha, Nebraska) cited the Establishment Clause as a reason for denying the request of Bridget Mergens to form a Christian club that would have the same privileges and meet on the same terms and conditions as other Westside student groups, except that it would have no faculty sponsor. Ms. Mergens took the case to court, and won at first. She lost on appeal at the 8th Circuit Court, and then later won in a 8-1 decision from the Supreme Court

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.

Due to the United States’ Supreme Court reviewing religious cases, on average, more than once a year since 1962, the Establishment Clause and Free exercise Clause have taken on a whole new meaning in public schools. Now, the two clauses are disjoined. The Establishment Clause has become the more favored one of the two, compared to the Free Exercise Clause, which is almost obsolete. Today, students

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

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment has represented a test to those courts looked with clashes amongst religion and the legislature. The proviso, which ensures the free exercise of religion, neglects to characterize religion, leaves its defensive parameters indistinct, and welcomes an extensive variety of understandings. Deciphering free exercise turns out to be particularly dubious - and particularly vital - in a socially various country, for example, the United States, when individuals from a religious minority look for

May it please the court, I come here today to address an issue that is central to the constitutional foundations of our nation: that is, the ongoing debate regarding the First Amendment, religious liberty and the separation of church and state. Specifically I wish to discuss the current controversy that involves the matter of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley.

The question in the case of Wallace vs Jeffrey is did Alabama’s state law authorizing a period of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer” violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment? My answer is Alabama state did not violate the establishment clause of the first amendment. Which puts me on the side of George Wallace. Alabama state has the constitutional right to allow a voluntary or meditating minute throughout the day. There are three solid arguments to prove evidence towards this case on why George Wallace is the better side. The first being not involving state and religion, second being Freedom of religion from the first amendment, third being the respondents precedent cases are irrelevant towards the case being displayed.

During the court case the Supreme Court was asked to solve an important question that came up.The question was Did the Pennsylvania law and Abington policy, require public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises,violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the first and fourteenth

A popular notion among many religious conservatives is the rejection of what is commonly referred to as the separation between church and state. They maintain the United States was founded by leaders who endorsed Christian principles as the cornerstone of American democracy, and that the First Amendment prohibition against government establishment was not intended to remove religion from public life. As a result, a number of disputes have made their way through to the courts, pitting those ready to defend the wall of separation, against those who would tear it down. Two recent cases have brought this battle to the forefront of political debate. The first involves an

The next case, Walz v Tax Comm’n of the City of New York, was also brought to the light of the Supreme court for alleged violation of the Establishment Clause as well. The circumstances of the case are also similar to that of the Everson v Board of Education. The plaintiff, being Mr. Walz, held land in New York City. Mr. Walz filed a lawsuit in state court pursuing a decree that will restrict the Tax Commission from executing a segment of the New York Constitution which gave immunity from property taxes upon the land operated exclusively for the purposes of religion, education, and or charity. The problem that could have risen from this tax exemption was that someone could argue that this was favoring a certain religion and violating the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. This is exactly the argument that was made by Mr. Walz. Both court of appeals and the state supreme court conceded summary judgement for the Tax Commision. A summary

By applying the three-prong test established in Lemon v. Kurtman, the Supreme Court concluded the exemption was, in fact, constitutional. Both authors agree with this decision and argue the exemption must continue to be upheld today. The Establishment Clause clearly forbids the government from intervening in a church’s ability to advance its religion. The Court held the exemption prevented government entanglement and was enacted to thrwart such involvement.

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,