"The separation of church and state" is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Clause of Establishment and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the American Constitution of the State which reads: "Congress does not will make laws that respect the establishment of religion, or prohibit free practice... "
The phrase "separation between church & state" is generally traced back to 1 January 1802, a letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Jefferson writes,
Jefferson echoes the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams who wrote in 1644,
Article Six of the Constitution of the United States also stipulates that "no religious test shall be required as a Qualification for any Office or Public Trust under the United States."
Jefferson's metaphor of the separation wall has been repeatedly cited by the US Supreme Court. In Reynolds v. United States (1879) The Court wrote that Jefferson's comment "is acceptable almost as an authoritative statement of the scope and effects of the [First Amendment]." In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black writes: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law is meant to establish a dividing wall between church and state."
Unlike the separation, the United States Supreme Court in Zorach v. The Clauson underscores accommodationism, holding that "institutions" presuppose a Supreme Being "and that the government's recognition of God is not the formation of a state church as the author of the Constitution intended to ban, and so the Court does not always interpret the principle constitutional as absolute, and the proper level of separation between government and religion in the US remains a subject of ongoing debate.
Video Separation of church and state in the United States
Sejarah awal
Many early immigrant groups went to America to worship freely, especially after the British Civil War and religious conflicts in France and Germany. They included nonconformists like the Puritans, who were Protestant Christians who escaped the religious persecution of the English Anglican King. Despite the general background, the group's views on religious tolerance vary. While some people like Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn from Pennsylvania ensure the protection of minority religions in their colonies, others such as Plymouth Colonies and Massachusetts Bay Colonies have established churches. The Dutch colony of New Netherland founded the Dutch Reformed Church and banned all other worship, although its enforcement was sparse. Religious obedience is wanted partly for financial reasons: The established church is responsible for alleviating poverty, placing churches who disagree at significant losses. This, along with many other statements should be a footnote, as it seems more like an opinion rather than a fact.
Former state churches in England North America
Catholic Colony
- When the New France was moved to Great Britain in 1763, the Catholic Church remained under tolerance, but Huguenots were allowed into where they had previously been banned from settlements by the Paris authorities.
- The Maryland colony was founded by a charter granted in 1632 to George Calvert, the secretary of state for Charles I, and his son Cecil, who recently entered Catholicism. Under their leadership, many families of British Catholic nobles settled in Maryland. However, the colonial government was officially neutral in religious affairs, tolerating all Christian groups and ordering them to avoid acts contrary to others. On several occasions, people who disagreed with the church led a revolt that temporarily overthrew Calvert's rule. In 1689, when William and Mary came to the throne of England, they agreed upon the demand to revoke the original royal charter. In 1701, the Church of England was proclaimed, and in the course of Maryland Catholics in the eighteenth century was first forbidden from public office, then its rights were revoked, although not all laws passed to them (especially laws that restricted property rights and impose penalties for sending children to be educated in foreign Catholic institutions) is upheld, and some Catholics even continue to hold public office.
- Spanish Florida submitted to England in 1763, Britain divides Florida into two colonies. Both East and West Florida continue the policy of tolerance for Catholic Residents.
Protestant Colonies
- The Plymouth colony was founded by Pilgrims, English Dissenters or Separatists, Calvinists.
- The colonies in Massachusetts Bay, New Haven, and New Hampshire were founded by Puritans, Calvinists, Protestants.
- New Holland was founded by the Dutch Reformed Calvinist.
- The colonies of New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are officially the Church of England.
Colony without established church
- The province of Pennsylvania was founded by Quaker, but the colony never had an established church.
- West Jersey, also founded by Quaker, forbade any establishment.
- Delaware Colony
- The Rhode Island colony and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissidents, are widely regarded as the first country to grant religious freedom to all its citizens.
Tabular summary
^ Note 1: In some colonies, the company was no longer in practice in the Revolution, around 1776; this is the date of permanent law abolition.
^ Note 2: in 1789 The Georgian Constitution was amended as follows: "Article IV 10. Section 10. No one in this country, any pretense, deprived of the priceless privilege of worshiping God in any way appropriate to his own conscience, or being forced to attend any place of worship that is contrary to his own faith and judgment, nor will he ever have to pay tithing, taxes or other levels, to build or repair any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what it believes to be true, or voluntarily engaged to do so.not a religious community to be established in the country this, in preference to others, no one will be denied enjoying civil rights only because of his religious principles. "
^ Note 3: From 1780 Massachusetts has a system that requires everyone to become a member of the church, and allows every church to impose a tax on its members, but prohibits any laws that require it for each particular denomination. This is an objection, as in the practice of establishing the Church of Congregation, the majority denomination, and abolished in 1833.
^ Note 4: Until 1877 the New Hampshire Constitution required state legislators to become Protestant.
^ Note 5: The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 dismissed the Anglican church, but until 1835 the NC Constitution allowed only Protestants to hold public office. From 1835 to 1876 only allowed Christians (including Catholics) to hold public office. Article VI, Section 8 of the NC Constitution currently prohibits only the atheists from holding public office. Such clauses held by the United States Supreme Court can not be enforced in the Torcaso case v. Watkins in 1961, when the court ruled unanimously that such clauses were a religious test that did not comply with the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
^ Note 6: Religious tolerance for Catholics with established Church in Britain is a policy in former East and West Florida colonies when under British rule.
In the Paris Treaty (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War, the British handed East Florida and West West back to Spain (see Spanish Florida ).
^ Note 8: The tithe for Anglican Church support in Virginia was terminated in 1776, and never recovered. 1786 is the date of the Virginia Freedom of Religion Statute, which prohibits coercion to support any religious body.
Colonial support for separation
The Flushing Remonstrance showed support for the separation of church and state as early as the mid-seventeenth century, expressed their opposition to religious persecution in any form: "The law of love, peace and freedom in countries reaching Jews, Turks and Egyptians, the son of Adam, who is the glory of the outer states of the Netherlands, so love, peace and freedom, reaching out to all in Christ Jesus, condemning hatred, war and slavery. "The document was signed December 27, 1657 by a group of British citizens in America insulted by persecution of peoples Quaker and religious policy of the New Dutch Governor, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant officially prohibited all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. Signers signify "their desire therefore in this case not to judge us not to be judged, not to condemn at least we are cursed, but to let everyone stand or fall on his own Master." Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in jail until they pulled back. However, John Bowne allowed Quaker to meet at his home. Bowne was arrested, imprisoned, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court acquitted Bowne.
The New York Historical Society President and Columbia University History Professor Kenneth T. Jackson described Flushing Remonstrance as "the first thing we have in writing in the United States where a group of citizens testify on paper and on their signature the right of people to follow the heart their own conscience deals with God - and the government's inability, or government's illegality, to disrupt it. "
Given the diverse opinions of Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believes that a religion condoned (established) would be disturbing rather than binding a newly formed union. George Washington wrote letters in 1790 to the country's first Jewish congregation, Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island to declare:
Allow citizenship rights and immunities. Now no more tolerance is spoken of, as if it were the joy of one class of people, that others enjoy the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For the happiness of the United States Government, which gives bigotry there is no sanction, for the persecution no help only requires that those who live under its protection should humble themselves as good citizens, in giving it to all effective support opportunities.
There are also opponents of support from any church established even at the state level. In 1773, Isaac Backus, a prominent Baptist preacher in New England, wrote against a state-sanctioned religion, saying: "Now who can hear Christ proclaim that his kingdom is, not of this world, but believe that the union of church and declare together pleasing him? "He also observes that when" church and state are separated, the effect is happy, and they are not at all intrusive: but where they have been harassed together, no tongue or pen can fully describe the delinquency that has taken place. " The Virginia Statute, the influential Thomas Jefferson for Religious Freedom was enacted in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights.
Most Anglican ministers, and many Anglicans, are Loyalists. The Anglican establishment, which has existed, largely did not work during the American Revolution, although the new States did not formally abolish and replace it until several years after the Revolution. Jefferson, Madison, and "split wall" Jefferson, Madison, and "split wall"
The phrase "[A] fence or wall of separation between the church park and the world's wilderness" was first used by Baptist theologian Roger Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony, in his 1644 book The Bloody Tenent of Persecution . This phrase was later used by Thomas Jefferson as a description of the First Amendment and its restriction on the legislative branch of the federal government, in a 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists (a minority religion concerned about the dominant position of Congregationalist churches in Connecticut):
Believing to you that religion is a matter that lies solely between man and his god, that he owes no responsibility to his faith or worship, that legitimate government power only attains action, and not opinion, I contemplate with sovereign admiration. the actions of all Americans who claim that their "legislative body" should "not make laws respecting religious formation, or prohibiting free exercise thereof," building a separating wall between the church and the State.. Holding on the expression of the highest wishes of this nation in the name of the right of conscience, I will see with sincere satisfaction over the progress of sentiments that tend to return to man all his natural rights, assuring him that he has no natural right to oppose his social duties.
Jefferson's letter was a reply to a letter he received from the Danbury Baptist Association dated October 7, 1801. In a 1808 letter to Virginia Baptists, Jefferson used the same theme:
We have solved, with fair experiments, the big and interesting question of whether religious freedom is compatible with the order in government and compliance with the law. And we have experienced the tranquility and comfort resulting from leaving everyone to express freely and openly the principles of religion which is the induction of his own reason and the solemn belief of his own question.
Jefferson and James Madison's concepts of separation have long been moot. Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation sent to him by Congress during his presidency, though he issued a proclamation of Gratitude and Prayer as Governor of Virginia. Madison issued four religious proclamations when the President, but vetoed two bills on the grounds that they violated the first amendment. On the other hand, both Jefferson and Madison attend religious services on the Capitol. Years before the ratification of the Constitution, Madison argued "Because if Religion is freed from the Union's authority broadly, it is still less subject to the Legislature." After retiring from the presidency, Madison wrote of "the total separation of the church from the state." "" Greatly maintained like the separation between Religion & amp; Government in the Constitution of the United States, "Madison wrote, and she stated," the practical difference between Religion and the Civil Government is essential to its purity, and as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. "In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison is growing," We teach the great world of truth that Govts. do better without Kings & amp; Nobility other than with them. The excess will be duplicated by another lesson that Religion evolves in greater purity, without than with the help of government. "The original draft of Madison on the Bill of Rights has included provisions binding on the State, as well as the Federal Government, from a religious standpoint, but the House of Representatives did not pass them.
The opponents of Jefferson say that his position is the destruction and rejection of the government against Christianity, but this is a caricature. In establishing the University of Virginia, Jefferson encouraged all separate sects to have their own preachers, despite the constitutional prohibition of a State supporting the professorship of Divinity, arising from the Virginia Statute itself for Religious Freedom. Some argue that this arrangement is "fully compatible with Jefferson's view of the separation of church and state;" Others, however, show Jefferson's support for a scheme in which students at the university will attend religious services every morning as evidence that his views are inconsistent with strict separation. Still other scholars, such as Mark David Hall, try to shy away the whole matter by arguing that American jurisprudence focuses too narrowly on this one Jeffersonian letter while failing to account for other relevant histories
Jefferson's letter enters American jurisprudence in the case of polygamy 1878 Mormon Reynolds v. US, where the court quotes Jefferson and Madison, seeking a legal definition for the word religion . Writing for the majority, Judge Stephen Johnson Field quoted Jefferson's Letter to Danbury Baptist to declare that "Congress has been deprived of all legislative powers over merely opinions, but left free to achieve actions that violate the social or subversive obligations of good order." Considering this , the court ruled that prohibiting polygamy is constitutional.
Patrick Henry, Massachusetts, and Connecticut
The Jefferson and Madison approach was not the only one taken in the 18th century. Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom is drafted in opposition to the law, espousially supported by Patrick Henry, who will allow any Virginian to be part of any denomination, but which will require him to become a member of several denominations and pay taxes to support him. Similarly, the Massachusetts Constitution originally states that "no subject will be hurt, harassed, or restrained, in his person, freedom, or property, for worshiping God in the manner and season that best suits his own conscience... provided that he does not disturb public peace, nor deters others in their religious worship, "(Article II) but also that:
these people of the commonwealth have the right to invest their legislatures with the power to authorize and oblige, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, certain cities, parishes, territories and other bodies of politics, or religious societies, to make appropriate provisions, at their own expense, to the institution of the worship of God in public, and for the support and care of religious teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this commonwealth also have the right to, and do, invest their legislature with the authority to order all subjects present at the instruction of the public teachers mentioned above, at the time and season mentioned, if any where instructions they can be consciously and comfortably present. (Article III)
Because, in practice, this means that the decision of who is taxed for a particular religion is in the hands of the electorate, usually Congregationalist, the system is open to abuse. It was abolished in 1833. The intervening period is sometimes referred to as "religious formation" in Massachusetts.
The Duke of York has requested that every community in his new land in New York and New Jersey support the church some, but this is more often the Dutch, Quaker or Presbyterian Reformation, than the Anglican. Some choose to support more than one church. He also ordains that free taxpayers, after paying their local taxes, to choose their own church. The terms to surrender New Amsterdam have established that the Dutch will have freedom of conscience, and Duke, as a right-divinely open-minded Catholic, is not a friend of Anglicanism. The first Anglican Minister in New Jersey arrived in 1698, though Anglicanism was more popular in New York.
Connecticut has a real religious stand. Citizens did not adopt the Constitution during the Revolution, but changed their Charter to remove all references to the British Government. As a result, the Congregational Church continued to be established, and Yale College, then a Congregational institution, received grants from the State until Connecticut adopted the constitution in 1818 in part because of this problem.
Test act
The absence of religious formation does not necessarily mean that everyone is free to hold office. Most of the colonies have the Test Act, and some countries keep it for a short time. This is contrary to the Federal Constitution, which explicitly prohibits the use of religious tests for Federal offices, and which through the Fourteenth Amendment then extends this prohibition to America.
For example, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 provided freedom of conscience in the same language as Massachusetts (equally prohibiting the payment of "taxes, decrees or other payments" in conflict with the conscience). This then provides:
That there will be no stance of any of the religious sects in this Province, in any other preference; and that no Protestant inhabitants of this Colony will be denied enjoyment of civil rights, only because of his religious principles; but that all those who profess to believe in the faith of any Protestant sect, who will humble themselves peacefully under the rule of government, as determined, shall either be elected office of profit or trust, or become wrong members a branch of the Legislature, and will fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others of their fellow subjects.
This will allow the Test Act, but does not require it.
The original Charter of the Eastern Jersey Province has limited membership in the Assembly to Christians; The Duke of York is very Catholic, and the owners of Perth Amboy, New Jersey are Scottish Catholic friends. The Province of West Jersey has declared, in 1681, that there can be no religious test for office. An oath has also been imposed on militia during the French and Indian Wars that required them to cancel the pretensions of the Pope, which may or may not have been applied during the Revolution. The law was replaced by 1799.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provides:
And every member, before he takes his seat, must make and subscribe to the following statements:
- I believe in one God, creator and governor of the universe, rewarder of good and punishment for the wicked. And I recognize the Old and New Testaments of Scripture given by divine inspiration.
And no further religious or other tests will be required of any civilian official or judge in this State.
Again, it is generally assumed that all tax-exempt persons and their sons will be able to choose, and that no "man," who acknowledges the existence of God, fair deprived or summed up of any civil rights as citizens, because of its religious sentiments or the peculiar way of religious worship. "
Maps Separation of church and state in the United States
U.S. Constitution
Article 6
Article Six of the United States Constitution states that "no religious test will be required as a Qualification for any Office or Public Trust under the United States". Prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religion in the Constitution.
First Amendment
The first amendment of the US Constitution states "Congress will not make laws that respect the establishment of religion, or prohibit free practice thereof." The two sections, known as "clause of establishment" and "independent practice clause", form a basic text for the interpretation of the Court Agung on the doctrine of "separation of church and state". The three central concepts stem from the First Amendment which became the American doctrine for church-state separation: there is no compulsion in religion, no hope of supporting religion against one's will, and freedom of religion encompassing all religions. In short, citizens are free to accept or reject a belief, any support for religion - financial or physical - should be voluntary, and all religions are equal before the law without special preferences or favoritism.
First Congressional Congress indicates that his understanding of the separation of church and state differs sharply from their contemporaries in Europe. As the historian of Theological Seminary Union of the 19th century Philip Schaff observes:
The separation of church and state by America depends on respect for the church; separation [of European anticolitics], on ignorance and hatred of the church, and religion itself... The Constitution does not create a nation, nor religion and institutions. It was found that they already existed, and framed for the purpose of protecting them under a form of republican government, in the rules of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The Aug. 15, 1789, entry in the Madison papers indicates he intends to clause the standpoint to prevent government coercion against religious beliefs on individuals. The entry says: "Mr. Madison said he understood the meaning of the words, that Congress should not build a religion, and enforce the law of observation with the law, or force men to worship God in any way contrary to their conscience.... "
Some jurists, such as John Baker of LSU, theorized that Madison's initial proposed language - that Congress should not make laws on the establishment of a "national religion" - was rejected by the House, supported a more general "religion" in an effort to calm Anti- Federalists and Federalists, the word "national" is the reason to be wary of experience under British rule.As a debate on the establishment clause, Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts takes issue with Madison on whether the government is a national or federal government ( where nations retain their individual sovereignty), which Baker suggests forcing Madison to draw his language from the debate.
Following the argument between Madison and Gerry, Rep. Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire proposed a language that states, "Congress will not make laws that touch religion or the right of conscience." This raises an uproar from members, such as Rep. Benjamin Huntingdon of Connecticut and Rep. Peter Sylvester from New York, who fears his language can be used to undermine religious practice.
Others, like Rep. Roger Sherman of Connecticut, believes that the clause is unnecessary because the original Constitution only gave Congress declared power, which did not include establishing a national religion. Anti-Federalists such as Rep. Thomas Tucker of South Carolina moved to attack the full establishment clause because it could precede the religious clause in the state constitution. However, the Anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in persuading the House of Representatives to cancel clauses from the first amendment.
The Senate through several targeted versions is narrower before reaching contemporary languages. One version reads, "Congress will not make laws that establish a religious sect or a society that puts more of a priority on others, nor will the freedom of conscience be violated," while others read, "Congress will not make laws that fix one certain religious groups who put others first. "In the end, the Senate rejected the narrowly targeted language.
At the time of the passing of the Bill of Rights, many countries act in ways that will now be held unconstitutional. All early official state churches were passed in 1833 (Massachusetts), including the establishment of Congregationalists in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the Founding doctrine - which uses the Clauses of Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold a Bill of Rights applicable to states - the churches of this country can not be rebuilt today.
But the provisions of the state constitution protect religious freedom, especially the so-called freedom of conscience. During the nineteenth century (and prior to the incorporation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment), traitors turned to these provisions to oppose Sunday laws (blue law), bible-reading in schools, and regulations other religions.
The 14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (Amendment XIV) was one of the post-Civil War amendments, which was intended to secure the right of former slaves. This includes the legal process and the same protection clauses among others. This amendment introduces the concept of incorporating all relevant federal rights to states. Although not yet fully implemented, the doctrine of establishment has been used to ensure, through the Clauses of Effects and Privileges and Immunities, the application of most of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights to states.
Merger clause of First Amendment formation in landmark case of Everson v. The Education Council has influenced the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in terms of state governments. While upholding state law in the case, which is reserved for public transport to private religious schools, the Supreme Court declares that the First Amendment clause clause is fully applicable to the state government. A more recent case involving the application of this principle to the state is the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
The principle of "Separation" and the Supreme Court
Jefferson's concept of the first "separation of church and state" became part of the jurisprudence of the Verse Creation at Reynolds v. US. , 98 AS 145 (1878). In this case, the court examined the history of religious freedom in the United States, determining that while the constitution guarantees religious freedom, "The word 'religion' is not defined in the Constitution.We must go elsewhere, therefore, to ensure its meaning, and no more precisely, according to us, compared to the history of the time in which the provision was adopted. "The court found that leaders in advocating and formulating constitutional guarantees of religious freedom were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Citing the "separation" paragraph from Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, the court concludes that, "coming like this from a recognized leader of that size supporter, it is acceptable almost as an authoritative declaration of scope and the effect of the amendment is guaranteed."
The centrality of the concept of "separation" in the Constitutional Religion Clause is made explicit in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 US 1 (1947), a case relating to New Jersey law allowing government funds to pay for student transport to public and Catholic schools. This is the first case in which the court applies an Establishment Clause to a country's law, having interpreted the supposed process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment as an application of the Bill of Rights to federal states and legislatures. To quote Jefferson, the court concluded that "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state, which must be kept high and impenetrable, and we can not agree on a single offense."
While the decision (with the four parties) ultimately upholds state laws that allow funding of student transportation to religious schools, majority opinion (by Judge Hugo Black) and different opinions (by Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge and Judge Robert H. Jackson) each explicitly declaring that the Constitution had established a "wall between the church and the state" or "the separation of the Church from the State": their disagreement was limited to whether this case of transportation state funding to religious schools violated that wall. Rutledge, on behalf of the four dissenting judges, assumed the position that the majority had indeed permitted the breaking of the dividing wall in this case: "Not so high and impenetrable today as yesterday is the wall that churches and the state emerge by Virginia. great freedom of religion and the First Amendment, is now made applicable to all states by the Fourteen. "Writing separately, Judge Jackson argues that" [T] here there is no good basis to support current legislation. , advocating a complete and uncompromising separation of the Church from the State, seems to be totally at odds with the conclusions that result in supporting their association in education. "
In 1962, the Supreme Court discussed the issue of officially sponsored prayer or religious recitation in public schools. In Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962), the Court, in a 6-1 vote, stipulated it was unconstitutional for state officials to write formal school prayers and to require recitation in public schools. , even when the prayers are not denominational and students can forgive themselves from participation. (The prayer required by the New York State Council before the Court's decision consists of: "God Almighty, we recognize our dependence on You, and we ask Your blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country. Amen. ") As the Court states:
The applicants argued, inter alia, that state laws that oblige or permit the use of the Bupatis' prayers should be beaten as a violation of the Establishment Clause because the prayer was drawn up by government officials as part of the government's further religious program. confidence. For this reason, the petitionists argue that the use of the Bupatis' prayers by the State in its public school system violates the constitutional separation wall between the Church and the State. We agree with the dispute, because we think that a constitutional ban on a law that respects the formation of religion should at least mean that, in this country, there is no part of the government business to draw up official prayers for every American people group. to read as part of a government-run religious program.
The Court noted that "it is a historical matter that this very practice of establishing government-ordered prayers for religious service is one of the reasons that led many of our early colonists to leave the UK and seek religious freedom in America." The only person who disagreed, Justice Potter Stewart, objected to the court's embrace of the "dividing wall" metaphor: "I think that the Court's duty, in this case in all areas of constitutional adjudication, is irresponsibly aided by uncritical metaphorical prayer. like the "dividing wall", a phrase that can not be found in the Constitution. "
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968), the Supreme Court considers the Arkansas law that makes it a crime "to teach the theory or doctrine that humans rise or fall from lower animal order," or "to adopt or use in such institutions it is a textbook that teaches "this theory in any school or university that receives public funds. The court's opinion, written by Judge Abe Fortas, ruled that the Arkansas law violates "the constitutional prohibition of state laws that respect the establishment of religions or prohibit free practice." The main fact is that the Arkansas law selects from the body of science a certain segment who are being harassed for the only reason that is considered contrary to a particular religious doctrine, that is, with a particular interpretation of the Book of Genesis by a particular religious group. "The Court held that the Establishment Clause prohibited the state to promote any religion, and that" [T] have no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views they do not like. "
In Lemon v. Kurtzman , 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the court determined that the Pennsylvania state's policy of changing salaries and fees associated with secular subject teachers in private religious schools violated the Establishment Clause. The court's decision held that the separation of church and state could never be absolute: "Our previous ownership did not call for total separation between church and state: total separation is impossible in absolute terms." Some ties between government and religious organizations are inevitable. "The judicial prohibition of the entanglement must admit that the line of separation, away from the" wall ", is a vague, vague, and variable constraint depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship."
Following this decision, the Supreme Court has adopted a three-pronged test to determine whether government action is in accordance with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test". Firstly, laws or policies must be adopted with a neutral or non-religious purpose. Secondly, the principle or the main effect must be one that does not advance or obstruct religion. Third, laws or policies should not result in "excessive winding" from government with religion. (The decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman relies on the conclusion that government benefits flow disproportionately to Catholic schools, and that Catholic schools are an integral component of the Catholic Church's religious mission, so the policy involves the state in "exaggeration" with religion.) Failure to fulfill one of these criteria is proof that the law or the policy concerned violates the Establishment Clause.
In 2002, three panel of judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the reading of the Pledge of Loyalty class at a California public school was unconstitutional, even when students were not forced to recite it, because the inclusion of the phrase "under God." In reaction to this case, Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow , both houses of Congress passed measures to reaffirm their support for the pledge, and condemned the panel's decision. This case was submitted to the Supreme Court, where the case was finally canceled in June 2004, solely for procedural reasons unrelated to substantive constitutional matters. Instead, a five-justice majority states that Newdow, the non-custodial parent who sued on behalf of his daughter, has no right to demand.
When the Louisiana state legislature passed a law requiring public school biology teachers to give Creationism and Evolution the same time in the classroom, the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it was intended to promote a particular religion, and not serve secular purposes. enhanced scientific education. ( See also: Creation and evolution in public education )
The Ten Command View as part of the courtroom display was considered in the case group decided in the summer of 2005, including McCreary County v. ACLU from Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry me. While parties on both sides are hoping for a reformulation or clarification of the Lemon test, the two decisions end in a 5-4 decision and defy the narrow, with Judge Stephen Breyer swinging voice.
On December 20, 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided in the case of ACLU v. Mercer County that the continuing appearance of the Ten Commandments as part of a larger view on American legal traditions in a Kentucky court building is permitted, since the purpose of displaying (educating the public on American legal traditions) is secular. In a decision on the contradictions across Mount Soledad on May 3, 2006, a federal judge ruled that a cross on public property on Mount Soledad should be removed.
In what will happen is the Greek City v. Galloway, 12-696, the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case on whether prayers at city meetings, which are permitted, should allow different religions to lead prayers, or whether prayer can be dominated by Christians. On May 5, 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Greek City by stating that the US Constitution not only allows to pray at government meetings but also for sectarian prayers such as Christian majority prayer.
Tripoli Tractate
In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli stated in Article 11:
As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on Christianity; because it itself does not have the character of enmity against law, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, since these States have never engaged in any war, or hostile acts against a Mahometan state, declared by the parties, that no excuse arises from religious opinion, will ever result in disruption to harmony existing between the two countries.
Interpretive controversy
Some scholars and organizations disagree with the idea of ​​"separation of church and state", or the way the Supreme Court interprets constitutional restrictions on religious formation. Such critics generally argue that the phrase misrepresents the textual requirements of the Constitution, while noting that many aspects of church and state mix at the time of the Constitution are ratified. These critics argue that the usual degree of separation of church and state is unlikely to be construed by constitutional formers. Some of the assimilation between church and state includes religious references in official contexts, and other founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence of the United States, which refers to the notion of "Creator" and "God of Nature", although these references ultimately do not appear. in the Constitution also does not mention certain religious views of the "Creator" or "God of Nature."
These critics of the modern separation of church and state also noted the formal establishment of religion in several countries at the time of ratification, to show that the incorporation of the modern Clause of Establishment as a state government contradicts the original constitutional intent. The problem is complex, however, since incorporation basically bases on the part of the 14th Amendment in 1868, at which time the first amendment application to the state government was recognized. Much of this constitutional debate relates to competing interpretive theories of originalism versus modern, progressive theories such as the doctrine of the Constitution of Life. Another debate centers on the principle of state law in America that is defined not only by the Constitutional Supremacy Clause, but also by legal precedents, making accurate readings of the Constitution subject to the customs and values ​​of a particular era, and rendering the concept of historical revisionism irrelevant when discussing Constitution.
The "religious test" clause has been interpreted to include both elected and designated officials, career civil servants and politically appointed persons. Their religious beliefs or lack thereof are therefore not allowed tests or qualifications related to federal employees since the ratification of the Constitution. However, there are seven countries whose languages ​​are included in the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Rights, or in their constitutional bodies which require the holders of state offices to have certain religious beliefs, although some have been challenged in court. These countries are Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
The required beliefs of these clauses include belief in the Great Being and belief in future rewards and punishments. (The Tennessee Constitution Article IX, Part 2 is one such example.) Some of these same states state that the oath of office includes the words "so help me God." In some cases, this belief (or oath) is historically required by judges and witnesses in court. At one time, such restrictions were permitted under the doctrine of state rights; today they are deemed in violation of the federal First Amendment, as applied to states through the 14th amendment, and are therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable.
Although sometimes questioned as a possible breach of separation, the appointment of an official pastor for government functions, voluntary prayer meetings at the Department of Justice outside working hours, voluntary prayer while eating in US forces, for many elected offices, FBI agents, etc., have been held not to violate the First Amendment, as they fall into the realm of religious freedom.
Relaxed zoning rules and privileged parking privileges for churches, tax-exempt status from church property, the fact that Christmas is a federal holiday, etc., have also been questioned, but have been regarded as an example of the government's prerogatives in practical and useful decisions. setting for the community. The national motto "In God We Trust" has been challenged as a violation, but the Supreme Court has ruled that ceremonial deism is not religious. A circus court verdict affirms Ohio's right to use its motto as a part of the Bible, "With God, everything is possible", because it does not indicate a preference for a particular religion.
Jeffries and Ryan (2001) argue that the modern concept of separation of church and state comes from a twentieth-century decision in the Supreme Court. The central point, they argue, is a constitutional ban on aid to religious schools, followed by a later ban on religious observance in public education. Jeffries and Ryan argue that these two propositions - that public aid should not go to religious schools and that public schools should not be religious - make up the separation position from the modern Establishment Clause.
Jeffries and Ryan argue that the unaided position drew support from a separatist opinion coalition. The most important is "the pervasive secularism that dominates American public life," which seeks to confine religion to the private realm. Furthermore, the ban on government assistance for religious schools was supported before 1970 by most Protestants (and most Jews), who opposed aid to religious schools, which were mostly Catholics at the time. However, after 1980, anti-Catholic sentiments have been reduced among mainline Protestants, and important coalitions of secular and Protestant churches have collapsed. While mainline Protestant denominations are more inclined towards the strict separation between church and state, many evangelical opinions have now abandoned that position. As a result, strict separation is opposed today by members of many Protestant religions, perhaps even surpassing Roman Catholic opposition.
Criticism of the modern concept of "separation of church and state" argues that it is not tied to anything in the text of the constitution and contradicts the phrase conception when the Founding Fathers understand it. Philip Hamburger, a professor of Law Columbia school and a prominent critic of the modern understanding of the concept, argues that the modern concept, which deviates from the jurisprudence of the constitutional clause, is rooted in American anti-Catholicism and Nativism. Briefs before the Supreme Court, including by the US government, have stated that some state constitutional amendments relating to the modern conception of separation of church and state (the Blaine Amendment) are motivated by and intended to enact anti-Catholics.
J. Brent Walker, Executive Director of the Joint Baptist Committee, responded to a Hamburger statement stating; "The fact that the separation of church and state has been supported by some who show anti-Catholic animism or secular insubordination does not impose the validity of the principle, the champions of religious freedom have debated the separation of church and state for reasons." "It has nothing to do with anti-Catholics or the desire for secular culture.Of course, separatists have opposed the Catholic Church when it has tried to enter society until it supports its parochial school or to argue for time on campus released in public schools.But the principle debate on the issue- the issue does not support allegations of religious bigotry "
Steven Waldman notes that; "Evangelicals provide political power for Madison and Jefferson's efforts, not only because they want to block official churches but because they want to keep the spiritual world and the secular world apart." "Freedom of religion results from an unlikely alliance of partners," wrote historian Frank Lambert in his book The Founding Fathers and Place of Religion in America. "New Light evangelicals like Isaac Bachus and John Leland join the Deists and skeptics like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to fight for the separation of church and state."
Politics and religion in the United States
Robert N. Bellah has in his writings that although the separation of church and state is based strongly on the constitution of the United States, this does not mean that there is no religious dimension in US political society. He uses the term "Civil Religion" to describe the specific relationship between politics and religion in the United States. His article 1967 analyzes the inaugural speech of John F. Kennedy: "Considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' altogether? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political dimension of the religious dimension."
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments