What about Freedom for All?
The most common phrase in America today is “Home of the Free”. When America first started out in the Colonies the above quote was probably very true. As time has passed through the centuries, America has felt the need to regulate and reduce the freedom that our founding fathers had intentionally planned for us. Such things as religion, reproductive rights, Native Americans and their rights, and marriage rights are being marginalized. These rights could be considered private matters that the government shouldn’t get involved with and probably rightly so.
Kids, in elementary school and middle school especially, are constantly being bombarded with propaganda. People love to push things on other people because, Heaven forbid, someone disagrees with them. One particular issue is religion and the role it plays in schools. Some teachers and parents are completely against any religious activity at their child’s school and other teachers and parents want everything to do with religion in schools. A big part of the debate includes the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment and the 1st amendment itself. In 1971, in the Lemon v. Kurtzman Supreme Court hearing, it was decided that there are three questions that need to be answered to decide if something goes against the Establishment clause; is there or will there ever have a secular purpose, does it advance or inhibit religion, and does it require the government to get involved with religion. (Marshall 128) This seems pretty straight forward. It makes sure that the government is protecting American’s freedom of religion and keeps the government out as much as possible. Then in 1973 in Miller v. California it was held that the 1st amendment doesn’t ...
... middle of paper ...
...r any religious book into the government’s laws. DOMA could be seen as a religious act to prohibit homosexuals the right to marry. Who can think of any reason besides religion why two men can’t get married? Then again, maybe there is an answer of why they can’t get married and why DOMA hasn’t come down under separation of church and state. Growing up each child has a different relationship with their parents. The mother, no matter how feminine or not, nurtures their child and cares deeply for them. The Dad, no matter how masculine or not, fights to protect their child from the nasty people in the world. Without either role a child could become more hardened, with no one to nurture or no one to protect them. People are entitled to their opinions and however one feels will determine if the impact of DOMA and what has since happened is a great one or a horrible one.
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
1. In the First Amendment, the clause that states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is based on the Establishment Clauses that is incorporated in the amendment. This clauses prohibits the government to establish a state religion and then enforce it on its citizens to believe it. Without this clause, the government can force participation in this chosen religion, and then punish anyone who does not obey to the faith chosen. This clause was in issue in a court case mentioned in Gaustad’s reading “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”. March v. Chambers was a court case that involved the establishment clause. Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who began each session with prayer by a chaplain who was being paid the state. The case stated that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the court stated that the establishment clause was not breached by the prayer, but was violated because of the fact that the chaplain was being paid from public funds.
Separation of church and state is an issue in the forefront of people’s minds as some fight for their religious freedoms while others fight for their right to not be subjected to the religious beliefs of anybody else. Because public schools are government agencies they must operate under the same guidelines as any other government entity when it comes to religious expression and support, meaning they cannot endorse any specific religion nor can they encourage or require any religious practice. This issue becomes complicated when students exercise their right to free speech by expressing their religious beliefs in a school setting. An examination of First Amendment legal issues that arise when a student submits an essay and drawing of a religious
The case Elk Grove Unified School District versus Newdow came about when a student parent, Michael Newdow, an atheist, has a disagreement with the Pledge of Allegiance. Elk Grove Unified School District is a public elementary school where teachers begin the day by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but it is considering being voluntary. Under California law, all elementary schools must recite the Pledge of Allegiance once a day unless those student object due to their religion. As stated before, in 1954 the Congressional Act added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Michael Newdow took it upon himself to review the School District policy referring to the religious portion. This caused Michael Newdow to sue in the federal district court in California, stating making students listen to the Pledge of Allegiance, even if the students do not choose to participate to the word “under God” violates the establishment clause of the United States Constitution’s First Amendment
“I believe in free people, constitutionally free, American definition of free, meaning we have a Constitution that limits the government. The government cannot encroach on our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, by virtue of our founding documents. I believe free people are, by and large — there are exceptions
In the selection The Last Department by Katia D. Ulysse, it is evident that though Foufoune is confident that Gwo Manman would live a life of happiness in the United States, the opposite holds true. Gwo Manman dies in this so-called “land of the free” that Foufoune brings her to. “Foufoune had kidnapped her from her home and was forcing her to live in the worst kind of exile” (224). Though many dream of living in the United States, nicknamed the “Land of the Free” or “Where Dreams Can be found,” this is not the case for Gwo Manman nor Foufoune. Gwo Manman is insistently brought to the states through Foufoune and her sister, Miriam, never forgives her for it. The tragic fate of Foufoune is held in Miriam’s hands that decide to murder her in Haiti. “Her mother and sister had both returned home to her in Puits Blain. This time to stay” (241). Ulysse’s story proves that there is disillusionment towards America’s “freedom.” Most people see Haiti as a place not worth living in. However, Haiti would have been the haven that could have kept both Gwo Manman and Foufoune alive. Sometimes, receiving aid that is not asked for reaps its own consequences.
Freedom is something that is not taken lightly in our country. With so many people in America, and so many different religions and views, there will never be a way to make every single person happy. People have the right to believe what they choose, say what they want to say, and do what they want to do. They have the right to worship and take part in ceremonies they choose. It is not for the government to tell them how to live their life. There may be restrictions on certain things but they do not require you to believe a specific way. America is a privileged nation and a free country and the people have every right to be thankful for all the freedoms we have been given.
In 1962 the Supreme Court outlawed school-mandated prayer in public schools, ruling that it was unconstitutional ("School Prayer”). The next year, it banned non compulsory religious readings. Over the next 30 years, the Court would continue to protect American students from the establishment of religion in public schools while protecting the equality of all beliefs. But in 2000 when Atheist Dr. Michael Newdow filed against the Broward County school board for the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, stating that it encroached on his daughter’s right to be free from religious coercion from the government, local courts decided to deny to view the case. Newdow appealed and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court who, instead of serving its intended purpose
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
The Constitution protects us, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. ” This also goes for the school system, people have the right to religious references. When America was founded, the religious freedom was what brought the pilgrims here in the first place. America was founded on the Christian religion and freedom. The persicution of the protestants in Europe had become so bad people left their homes and family to come to America so they could practice their religion however and whenever they chose. For example, the school did not let a student display a religious flag or hand out Bibles or tracs and public events the school would be going against the law of the land. Our Constitution was not drafted to be interpreted however nonreligious people want to interpret it. It was a guideline to show them how to run a country that provides freedom of religion and not to pick one religion over another they are all equal under the law.
Prohibiting School Prayer Threatens Religious Liberty. Civil Liberties. Ed. James D. Torr. -. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Are you religious? Do you have children? What kind of environment would you like your child in while he/she is in school? A century ago, most of America’s public schools were religious schools. Over time the state has redesigned schools in order to make schools for all children and not alienate any students. The Supreme Court then accelerated the movement in 1962 when it declared that prayer in public schools was unconstitutional. Then one year later the court removed all bible reading from public school because it is a religious exercise(-------). There is no clear line between what instructors are aloud to teach in school and what they are not aloud to teach, so many laws have been written and changed. In 1995 35 agencies representing 10 religions and ethical systems wrote “Religion in Public Schools” which was a joint statement of current laws stating that religions aloud to be taught in public schools, but only if it is serving an educational purpose.(----- http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_bibl1.htm---------) Yet what about the Supreme Court ruled out all bible reading in school, but here it states that it is legal, what law are we the people supposed to follow?
American freedom has faced many tribulations, especially throughout the slavery, segregation, and women’s suffrage eras. However, the ideological belief of individual freedom has always triumphed. From when the first Pilgrim stepped onto American soil to the present day America has been run by a democracy and the freedom that system of government allows its peoples to have. “Americans share a common identity grounded in the freedom — consistent always with respecting the freedom of others — to live as they choose” (Friedman).
In conclusion I argue that banning same-sex marriage is discriminatory. It is discriminatory because it denies homosexuals the many benefits received by heterosexual couples. The right to marriage in the United States has little to do with the religious and spiritual meaning of marriage. It has a lot to do with social justice, extending a civil right to a minority group. This is why I argue for same-sex marriage. The freedom to marry regardless of gender preference should be allowed.