Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | leslie-tate |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Ed.518Legal Presentation
Tim Kern
“Congress Shall Make No Law Respecting An Establishment of Religion”
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The US Supreme Court quoted the phrase for the first time in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.
This started to become a general term
Bellamy's original Pledge read, "I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” – 1892
In 1923 the National Flag Conference called for the words “my Flag” to be changed to “the Flag of the United States”.
Not until 1954 was “under God” added Some say in response to Communism
During the "McCarthyism"
Jehovah's Witnesses were expelled for refusing to say the Pledge
Claimed it was idolism
Court said: Yep, Kick um’ out. The pledge was a point of national security Designed "to promote in the minds of children who
attend the common schools an attachment to the institutions of their country.”
Increased persecution of JW
Jehovah's Witnesses Same issue, idolism
The Court said: Ah, We Changed our Minds Overturned Minersville School District v.
Gobitis Not on religious ground, but on freedom of
speech grounds. No more mandatory pledges
Michael Newdow was an atheist The whole “under God” problem CA District Court found Newdow had no
standing Did not have custody of the child in question
Ninth Circuit found for Newdow Has standing “Under God” was an endorsement of religion
Supreme Court said: Not It! Side stepped the religious issue Found Newdow had no standing
Giving students time within the school day for religious studies
Champaign, Illinois – 1940 Gave students release time for religious
studies Taught by religious leaders in public
school
Court said: Nope, Can’t Do It Even though the courses were “Voluntary” the
court found evidence of “coercion” Endorsed one religion over others
New York State Ed. Law #3210 Makes school attendance mandatory Allows districts to give release time to go to
religious classes off public campuses (with written parental consent)
Court said: Yep, This one’s OK No coercion Off school grounds Not endorsed by public officials
Didn’t really overturn McCollum v. Board
New Hyde Park, New York Mandatory school prayer
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.”
“Voluntarily” said at the start of every school day
Court said: Nope, no good. Neither the prayer's nondenominational
character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality
Abington (Philly Area) began every day with a Bible reading.
Mr. Schempp thought this violated his 1st amendment rights
The Court said: Find another book to read The state cannot force a person “to profess a
belief or disbelief in any religion” Once again this is a case of the State
“sponsoring” a religion over non-religion or one religion over another”
This case and ENGEL v. VITALE set off a fire storm of public protest
Life magazine declared Madalyn Murphy O’Hair, the mother of the plaintiff, in one of the cases, "the most hated woman in America."
Alabama law allows public school teachers to start a day with 1 minute of silent meditation or individual prayer
Teachers sometimes asked students to recite some prayers
Jaffree was the parent of 3 students in Mobile Alabama Claimed this practice violated the 1st
Amendment
The Court said: Nope, Can’t do it. The State's endorsement, by enactment of 16-
1-20.1, of prayer activities at the beginning of each school day is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.
Still hinges on official endorsement by school officials
This case involves graduation prayers at commencement School invited a rabbi to speak at a middle
school ceremony Totally voluntary participation
The Court said: No, this doesn’t work Held that government involvement in this
case creates "a state-sponsored and state-directed religious exercise in a public school."
Two laws in question PA and Rhode Island
Both states allowed public funding to reimburse private schools for the cost of teaching non-religious courses. Textbooks Teacher salaries Etc.
The Courts said: No Good. Held that the Act fostered "excessive
entanglement" between government and religion
Produced the Lemon Test Details the requirements for legislation
concerning religion that is still used today It consists of three prongs:
The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion
Religious Choral Music Allowed, found not to be an endorsement by
officials Use of Facilities
More of a Free Speech issue If you open to one group you open to all
groups Textbook Content
Evolution v. Creationism