Van Orden V. Perry: A Case Study

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

"Prayer has been banished from schools and the ACLU rampages to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere found in the Constitution or any other founding legislation. Our forefathers would never countenance the restrictions on religion exacted today." -- Bill Flax, Forbes, 2011

Our society lacks a moral compass today and we need to find a way to return to our country 's founding values. Is religion the answer? some may think so others may say keep church and state separate. The original statement was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association. In his letter he says “American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State” (Jefferson 1802). After this letter was written it went unnoticed or used until the mid 1800’s when a group petitioned Congress to remove Christian principles and values from government. They claimed that there needed to be a “separation of church and state”. Again it was unused officially until 1947 when in the case of Everson verses the board of education the court wanted to build the wall high and impregnable. That wall was never supposed to be as it is now referred to. We need to have the religious freedoms free from government control. How can a private petition be taken out of text and used as a guide for our federal court? Our forefathers were influenced by important values when establishing this country. Also, there were a lot of other influences in our founders thought processes; own life experiences, education, and even self gratification. Just reading The Declaration of Independence you can see where their

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)

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

The purpose of many monuments is to honor and protect the legacy of some of America's greatest heroes. Kirk Savage in the book Monument

One of the protections offered in the Bill of rights is the free exercise of religion. The first amendment contained in the Bill of rights stated that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Ginsberg, et al. 2015, P. 122). The freedom of religion is a great example of one of the protections contained in the bill of rights. The first amendment and the freedom of religion contain an establishment clause. This limit of governmental power puts a separation between the church and state. The Government, for instance, is not allowed to establish an official church and may not take sides among

The freedom of religion is important to us because it lets us learn our religion freely so we don't have to worry about the country saying. “We are going to only have the religion of the church of England.” or something like that. “ In some instances, they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances, they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.”(THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: A CHECK ON RELIGIOUS TYRANNY) This talks about how different religions were getting spiritual tyranny. The people didn't have liberties and were forced to follow one religion or they would’ve been criticised. “For him, America was not a “Christian nation,” but rather should recognize the equality of all believers, whether “Jews, Turks, Pagans [or] Christians.” “Government should protect every man in thinking and speak freely, and see that one does not abuse another.” He proposed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution in 1794 because of the “evils . . .

Concerning the outcome of Texas v. Johnson, Justice William Brennan delivered the opinion of the court: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Flag burning may be offensive to loyal Americans, but it is not threatening enough by itself to justify punishment. Brennan also stated that "we do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in so doing we dilute the the freedom that this cherished emblem represents." In Johnson’s case, the Supreme Court valued constitutional principles rather than patriotic preferences.

Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty plate designed that entailed the confederate flag. The message behind the confederate flag can be viewed as offensive to citizens. Sons of Confederate Veterans filed a suit against the Chairman and Board stating that it violated the Free Speech Clause. The District Court entered judgment but The Fifth Circuit reversed holding that Texas specialty plate designs are private speech and that the Board engaged in constitutionally forbidden viewpoint discrimination. Texas specialty plates constitutes government speech, the content in which the State is free to control, thus based on the dissenting Judge`s remarks, the State was entitled to refuse

While writing the constitution the founding fathers said “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” When they said this they

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution grants United States Citizens the right to freedom of religion (Horwitz 1). According to Supreme Court interpretation, the primary purpose of this amendment is to prevent government interference with the practice of religion. Since the 1950's this amendment has been slowly worn away, resulting in the government limiting its citizens' rights to freely pray, worship, and even proselytize. While various laws are often struck down in the Supreme Court, this process takes time and damage is done to freedom while awaiting the decision.

America is a home for people to be free from religious persecution; or at least that is what the nation was found on. As time goes on, it seem as if the foundation of religious freedom that the United States of America was found has been forgotten. The United States government at its earliest establishment had set forth a set of freedoms for all people to feel safe from any persecution. In order to make these a set of established rights, the founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution that holds within itself the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was a call for greater constitutional protection for each citizens, or immigrants, individual civil liberties. During the twentieth century, The United States Supreme Court had a very

Perry, the court abandoned the lemon test and decided to look at the monument’s nature and the nation’s history. The court held that this is more helpful when dealing with “ passive monuments”. The court gives no clear guidance on what a passive is, but we can distill some headlines from its decision in that case. A passive display is “a far more passive use “ than the use of the Ten commandments in Stone v. Graham. Also, it should take the plaintiff, any plaintiff , a long period of time from encountering it to suing it. This thing emphasizes the non –engaging use of the ten commandments. It is worth noting that this approach is problematic because the fact that Texans didn’t challenged the monument for 40 years is a logical consequence in a state where the percentage of Christians is higher than other states. A religious monument is less likely to be challenged in a state with lower Christians percentage. This part of this approach doesn’t say anything about the religiosity or secularity of the monument. Rather, it says a lot about the religiosity of the

In 1961, the monument of the Ten Commandments was donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles that also gave similar monuments to other government entities in the nation. The monument is located in front of the Texas State Capitol were the grounds also contain seventeen monuments and twenty-one historical markers commemorating the “people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity” (Rehnquist). Van Orden frequently encountered the monument whenever he would pass by it on his way to the library located in the Supreme Court building. Fourty years after the monument was built and six years after Van Orden started frequently encountering it did he decide to sue the state officials. In Van Orden v. Perry, Thomas Van Orden claimed that the monument