Since the beginning of America, religion has played a significant role in American society. People’s strong faith amongst various religions has fueled many arguments and debates in America. While opinions differ on whether the significance of faith has had a positive or negative effect on the American society, there is no denying that faith has influenced many decisions and political circumstances in the United States. Because of the importance of religion to the majority of Americans, various court cases and laws have emerged as a result of the controversial First Amendment. A perfect example of one of these issues is McGowan V. Maryland, a landmark Supreme Court case. On December 8, 1960, employees of a department store in Maryland were convicted and fined in a Maryland State Court for selling a loose-leaf paper binder, a can of floor wax, a stapler, staples, and a toy on a Sunday (https://supreme.justia.com). By doing so, the appellants were in violation of Maryland’s blue laws, which …show more content…
The employees claimed that these laws were in violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The court then retaliated by stating that the laws did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s explanation to this was that the laws were rational in relation to the objects of the legislation, and did not exceed the wide discretion permitting the States in enacting laws that had an effect on some groups of citizens differently than others. The court further made their argument in favor of the laws by stating that the laws did not economically impact stores that made an income solely from recreational items. In relation to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court decided that the law was not a law that respected an establishment of
The case, Near v Minnesota, took place in Minneapolis in 1929. It was argued on January 30, 1931 and was decided on June 1, 1931. This case appeared in the supreme court after the constitutionality of Minnesota’s law was questioned by Jay Near, the defendant. Near was to be censored due to his "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" article about the Chicago chief of police and many other local officials with being affiliated with gangsters. This then led to a lawsuit that formed from an attempt by Floyd B. Olson, to shut down the local newspaper owned by Jay Near that used racial language in its criticism of local officials and political figures. Olson claimed the paper violated the state’s nuisance law, and both the county court and Minnesota Supreme Court upheld Olson’s right to shut down the paper under Minnesota’s nuisance law. This was questioned because it was unclear whether or not the law permitted by the state would be impeding upon the defendant 's freedom of speech and even freedom of press.
The Supreme Court case in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow result in a unanimous ruling that the phrase “under God” may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance as narrated in public school classrooms. The court made the decision because the atheist father did not have grounds to sue the school district on behalf of his daughter. While the ruling was made on the Flag Day, it did not meet the clear endorsement of the constitutionality of the pledge as sought by President Bush and leaders of Republican and Democratic Parties in Congress. Notably, the eight judges who participated in the case had voted to turn over a federal appeals court decision in 2003 that would have prohibited the use of the phrase in public schools as an infringement of the constitutional outlaw on state-sponsored religion. A majority of these justices i.e. five made that ruling on procedural grounds in which Michael A. Newdow, the atheist, did not have legal reasons to sue the school district (Lane, 2004).
In 1492, Christopher Columbus came across North America accidentally during his voyage to the East Indies. Columbus’s discovery marked the beginning of a new era; with it the Europeans became aware of the opportunities the New World offered. This encouraged others to set out and explore the North and South America in the 1500s. Although colonial America was governed under the British rule, it developed differently than Britain. Since Colonial America was diversified, it offered new opportunities, different religions, and different political views than Britain.
The foundation upon which all of his principles are laid was that our basic law originated in God; however, Skousen’s argument for this fundamental premise is futile. He fruitlessly quoted individuals that will be recognized as authorities to form a cogent argument; nevertheless, he failed in proving his view that the American Constitution is founded solely upon Biblical law. Although emphasized frequently throughout the book, the Constitution never implied that the existence of a Creator is necessary for freedom in a body of people. Skousen never once acknowledged to readers that Mormon theology is the source for many of his ideas, although his depiction of America is primarily dominated by his devout Mormonism.
In 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized the place that religion holds in democracy. “Religion, by teaching man his relationship to God, gives the individual a sense of his own dignity and teaches him to respect himself by respecting his neighbor's. Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows. International good faith, a sister of democracy, springs from the will of civilized nations of men to respect the rights and liberties of other nations of men. In a modern civilization, all three—religion, democracy and international good faith—complement and support each other” (Franklin D. Roosevelt: State of the Union message). This statement supported the idea that religion is associated with a well functioning government. However, in the case of Everson v. Board of Education it was stated that, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach” (Hugo Black). This case occurred after Roosevelt’s presidency, and left a significant impact on the American government, as it made clear that religion had no place in the government (Hugo Black). In recent years, a larger disconnect between the church and the American court systems has been created with the nationwide
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 Alabama Supreme Court justice, who, in defiance of a Federal judge, fought the removal of a granite display of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the state courthouse. Also, a California man has challenged the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in an upcoming Supreme Court case involving student recitation of the pledge of allegiance.
It has been suggested that there is currently a culture war taking place in the United States. Depending on who you listen to, you will get vastly different descriptions of the two sides. Some will insist that the fight is between the upholders of strong Christian, moral values and godless, secular-minded, moral relativists. Others will tell you that defenders of religious freedom and rational thought are battling religious fundamentalists who wish to impose their radically conservative views on the whole of the American populace. Regardless of which way you view the debate, the entire so-called “culture war” boils down to a basic disagreement over the place of religion in public life. In light of President Bush’s recent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, I believe it is prudent to have a thorough discussion of the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state, because how the Supreme Court rules on issues related to this principle in the future will have a profound impact on how we define ourselves as a country. In order to conduct a thorough inquiry into this debate, I believe it is necessary to start at the beginning and attempt to discern how our founding fathers viewed religion’s place in public life, and how they relayed this view in the First Amendment. After I have done this, I will try to apply some of the principles I have gathered to current hot-button social issues which are likely to come before the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.
The incorporation of the 14th Amendment in regards to Civil Liberties is one of the longest and most important constitutional debates of all time. Though the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, the Supreme Court rendered their first interpretation of its scope five years later. The Court supported the Privileges and Immunities Clause by a narrow 5-4 vote. This clause was later thought to be the regular basis of enforcing individual citizen’s rights and civil liberties. The development in understanding and the provision for protection of one such liberty, freedom of religion, has changed throughout the history of the United States. Evidence of this can be seen not only in the role government has played but also through several court cases.
To open this discussion, I would like to start with the civil liberty of freedom of religion. This liberty was identified in my original Constitution essay through the mentioning of the separation of church and state clause. The reason for my including of this liberty, and my stressing of its importance, is that I feel that the government interprets this liberty in a one sided fashion because of the incorrect interpretation of the already in place separation of church and state clause. I also include it because I believe that recently the attacks upon religion have metastasized and tha...
The separation of church and state has been a long debated topic in the history of America. Although founded upon Christian ideals, the framers of the Constitution explicitly outlined the government to function secularly, in what is commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause”. When interpreting the Constitution in regards to religion, there are two primary philosophies. The first philosophy this paper will explore will be referred to as Positive Toleration. In general, the idea of positive toleration creates an environment that is encouraging of all religions. The second philosophy, which will be referred to as the “Wall of Separation,” encourages government freedom from religion. Although historically these two philosophies have jockey back and forth in public popularity, as America moves into the future, the Wall of Separation philosophy will take a strong-hold and will set the course for how the Establishment Clause will affect local government, schools, and private religious practice.
Nothing means more to a parent than their children. What is at odds in the debate over vaccinations is how they show it. On one side, you have parents that believe that vaccinating their kids is the best way to keep them healthy. On the other side you have parents that believe saving their children’s souls is more important, and vaccinating their children goes against their religious beliefs. The 1st amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That right is under attack by mandatory vaccinations in America. Whether we believe in vaccinations or not doesn’t matter, protecting religious freedom is what is at stake. Bobby Jindal said it best,
Newdow v. United States Congress, Elk Grove Unified School District, et al., 542 U.S. 1 (2004). 2010 - 10 23. Retrieved 11 20, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow. Religious liberty in public life. 2010 - 24 May 2010.
Initially, I will give a brief definition of “religious belief” and “religious discrimination” and write afterwards about prohibitions regarding religious discrimination, reasonably accommodation of religious beliefs and practices, undue hardship, and about the question “Who is subject to the provisions under Title VII?”.
Humans have been using religion to give a reason for their purpose in this world for thousands of years. To say that there is only one true religion in the world and all the others are imprecise is truthfully an inexplicable thought, due to the fact that humans will never know which religion is right until either they die or one of their messiahs come to life. Yet, this concept does not mean that the ideas of religion are not true.
Religion is a major controversy in modern society. Some reach a final conclusion early on that there is no God or Supreme Being; instead they believe that there is life and then nothing more. Others have so much faith that they are actually willing to die for their religion. It could be viewed as drastic but it is also reality. As a soon to be missionary I see the benefits of religious views and the impact it has on people for their well being. For my religion, I am willing to serve two years of my life to teach other the joy of the gospel while sacrificing my time away from my friends and family. An apostle of my church once said "The most effective missionaries, member and full time, act out of love… If we lack this love for others we should pray for it." -Elder Dallin H. Oaks. This quote just reminds me of why I am so willing to want to go out and serve The Lord. I will do it because of his love for me. But not to be biased of my own personal religion, I want to show that believing in something and having faith is better than nothing. Atheists are people that have a belief that there is nothing more after this life to me would seem to have really nothing to live for believing that they are just here to die which is a sad message. So in this essay I would like to describe why religion is so important and such an amazing thing.