The Establishment Clause by Taitum https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi en-us 2016-03-30 20:39:03 UTC 2025-05-12 00:44:28 UTC hello@padlet.com What are the grey areas? taitum_buckleygrote https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103338572 The court tends to stay away from religious cases as a result of there being not much of a set rule on how to handle separation of church and state. The decisions of the court vary from case to case and thus the rules surrounding the issue follow suit. Many times there are loopholes which can be used to get around the amendment. ]]> 2016-03-30 20:41:18 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103338572 As in the Constitution kevin_thweatt https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103338758 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."]]> 2016-03-30 20:43:07 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103338758 What it Means to You kevin_thweatt https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103339092
  • The United States Federal Government may not at any point set or establish any religion as a national religion 
  • Extends to all religions and beliefs.
  • Doesn't explicitly give any more rights to the people, rather it defends them from "forced belief" from the federal government.
    • ]]>     2016-03-30 20:45:52 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103339092     Current Implications danial_habeebi https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103339396 How is it really interpreted?
     It's ten words: "Congress shall make no law repecting an establishment of religion", have probably been subjected to more detailed scrutiny and analysis than any other provision of the original ten amendments. 

    There is much debate about the meaning of the term “establishment establishment clause.” Although judges rely on history, the framers other writings and prior judicial precedent, they sometimes disagree. Some, including former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, have argued that the term was intended to prohibit only the establishment of a single national church or the preference of one religious sect over another. Others believe the term prohibits the government from promoting religion in general as well as the preference of one religion over another. In the words of the Court in Everson:


    “The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion… . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”

    Past Supreme Court Case:

    Rosenberger v University of Virginia:
           A student organization at the University of Virginia applied for status as a student group entitled to certain benefits including the payment of publication fees for its religious-oriented newspaper. The University denied the group the status and benefits, and the group sued claiming a violation of the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses.

    ? Justices had to adress:
               Does the denial of funding to a student-run religious organization at a public university violate the Free Speech and Establishment Clauses of the 1st Amendment?

    Decision: 
               The Court found that the university's actions had the effect of suppressing student speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause. In addition, the Court found the funding program was neutrally applied to religious and non-religious organizations. The money paid to the printer to publish the student newspaper allowed the group access to an "open forum" similar to the renting of a hall or leasing of equipment.


    Wall of Separation (Carly and Jack)

    ]]>     2016-03-30 20:48:52 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103339396     Landmark Supreme Court Cases taitum_buckleygrote https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103340121 Everson v. Board 1947:
    • Upheld a NJ law allowing tax money to pay transportation costs for students attending private (including religious) school. Under grounds that bus transportation is not a religious activity. However, they stated that a "wall of separation" exists between church and state, and that the establishment clause of Amendment One applied to the states which left the door open for opposite ruling in the future. 
    Zorach v. Clauson 1952:
    • New York City began a program in which students in public schools could be dismissed from classroom activities for certain periods to participate in religious instruction elsewhere. In McCollum, the Court disallowed an Illinois program in which representatives of religious groups came to public schools and taught classes during the school day. The Court held that the "released time" program neither constituted the establishment of religion nor interfered with the free exercise of religion. The Court noted that public facilities were not being used for the purpose of religious instruction and that "no student was forced to go to the religious classroom."
    Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971:
    • In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions." The court ruled that the Pennsylvania statute did violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church-related educational institutions". It established a 3 part test (called the lemon test) to determine if a statute or practice violates the establishment clause. If any of these is present, the statute or practice is unconstitutional: 1. Non- secular (religious) purpose 2. Advances or inhibits religion 3. Excessive entanglement with government
    Wallace v. Jaffree 1985:
    • An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was an affirmative endorsement of religion. As such, the statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought to establish religion in public schools, thereby violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

    ]]>     2016-03-30 20:56:23 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103340121     taitum_buckleygrote https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343007 2016-03-30 21:22:59 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343007 taitum_buckleygrote https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343063 2016-03-30 21:23:39 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343063 In A Public High School... kevin_thweatt https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343208 In a public high school in West Virginia, a high school teacher (who is also a minister) proposes to the school board to allow a table in the school where bibles will be placed. The school board approves the proposal. A Jewish student walks by the table of Christian bibles, which also has a sign which reads, "Help Yourself." The student complains to the school board, but they ignore her request to remove the table. The student sues the school."

    The scenario presented involves a religious dispute where a student believed the public school to be favoring, and therefore in her conclusion establishing, Christianity as a religion. Since no religion had been explicitly established, the school would  maybe be found to be favoring a particular religion by making them available to students. Further, the school would be required by law to do the same or provide for the same opportunity to practice other religions, Judaism included, in equal length (that is putting up an identical table/tables for others. This would only be a minor case in the ongoing debate concerning what constitutes establishing, promoting, or simply allowing for any religion(s).]]>     2016-03-30 21:25:05 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343208     taitum_buckleygrote https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343298 2016-03-30 21:25:56 UTC https://padlet.com/taitum_buckleygrote/z1sywl8531qi/wish/103343298