December 15, 1791 the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, guaranteeing that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding (University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2011). Prefacing the institution of the Establishment Clause, society was becoming increasingly concerned that the government was dictating to the people which type of religion they should favor. The tables turned back in forth either favoring Catholicism or Protestantism. Tax dollars were being used to support whatever was being called the state church. During the time that Pierce v. Society of Sisters was being heard, people were becoming increasingly tired of the punishment, imprisonment and increased taxation that was occurring for not conforming to the prevailing religion. Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary 268 U.S. 510 The first to occur in the timeline of the cases discussed in this paper is Pierce v. Society of Sisters. In separate cases the Sisters of the Holy Names and Hill Military Academy would sue the governor of Oregon, Walter Pierce as well as state attorney general H. Van Winkle and district attorney of Multnomah County, Stanley Meyers. The Oregon state voters were presented with and passed a law called the Compulsory Education Act on November 7, 1922. This newly elected Act eliminated parochial schools, including Catholic schools except for a few exce... ... middle of paper ... ...an belief system, this author is aware that there are many that follow no religious tradition and would possibly be offended by all types of references to the Christian belief systems, especially if it was being forced upon them every single day in the classroom. This country was based on the Christian belief system. Prevalent in almost every state’s Constitution, a reference to “Almighty God” or “in the year of the Lord” can be found. What about the Pledge of Allegiance? This is stated every single day in the classroom? “One nation under God…”. An addition to the U.S. Constitution in 1954, “Under God” became a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2004, after being challenged in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, the Supreme Court ruled, on Flag Day, that the patriotic oath could not be challenged in his fight of separation of church and state.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
In 1949, a state-wide law was passed in Pennsylvania that required public school students to read scriptures from the Bible and recite the Lord’s Prayer everyday in class. This law stayed intact until Edward Schempp challenged it nine years later. Pennsylvania wasn’t the first or the only state to enforce law making it mandatory for students to read from the Bible during school. Twenty-five additional states had laws allowing “optional” reading for the Bible. But in eleven of the twenty-five states, courts had decided those laws were unconstitutional.
In America the Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives the American people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Most notably Amendment 1 is known for and most often cited as giving the Freedom of Speech. Even before this amendment was ratified people in the U.S. were protesting, as in the Boston Tea Party. Protesting has been a way to effect change in America. A question to ask is this: is there a right way or wrong way to protest.
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).
The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.
In the 2008 the United States Census Bureau, Self-Described Religious Identification of Adult Population, The Christian faith proved to be the more dominating religion out of all religions. So it would seem the words “Under God” would be beneficial for the majority, the Pledge of Allegiance allures and supports the loyalty of the majority of citizens. The nonbelievers of religion have had the right to not recite the pledge since 1943 but have been asked to quietly stand while the believers recite the pledge in its entirety. Even though leaving out “Under God” is not a difficult task we can clearly see a division has now developed, opposite of bringing the people together. Another example that shows the pledge allures and supports a loyalty to the majority of citizens, the acceptance and encouragement to keep ...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
In 1958 five parents of the Long Island community brought suit to stop the prayers use in schools. Two parents were Jewish; one parent was a Unitarian, One a member of The Ethical Culture Society and One Self-Professed Atheist. At first the lawsuit failed. Justice Bernard S. Meyer found the prayer religious but not in violation. Instead, Justice Meyer ordered the schools to set up safe guards against “embarrassing and pressures” towards children who did not wish to participate. The New York Appellate Division upheld this decision along with the state’s Court of Appeals, by a vote of 5-2.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment clearly reflects the Founding Father’s attempt to avoid the British practice of an intertwined state and church. It is evident that this clause was put into place to avoid government entanglement with religious affiliations. Having spent the majority of my life reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning at school, I never realized the government’s failure to comply with the Establishment Clause and ultimately defy the constitution. Having read both sides of the argument, I found Laycock’s assertions to be particularly convincing while Sekulow’s claims were less compelling.
The general court was set on a path to separating the beliefs of the church and the government. Luckily, years later a law would be passed in the Constitution that separates church and state.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070. (1925)
Why should we stand for the pledge of allegiance? Because of the veterans who died for us? Because they fought for what we call “freedom”? I personally don’t think it should be a requirement for school.
At this time, religion played a major role on the educational system in the sense that all types of religious groups were represented in the American school system, but they were challenged with how they could be loyal to their religions beliefs. With the 'Pledge of Allegiance' present, some people felt as though the values of Americans and the "Creators'" beliefs should be taught in the classrooms. Of course, others felt that religion and school should be separate. As a result of disagreements such as these, many problems arose.
Saying God in pledge of allegiance. Such a ridiculous thing to argue about. Before i begin here i’d like to make it clear I am a Christian. Whether you are a christian or not doesn't matter you're not forced to say “Under God” you can still say it if you wish but your not forced to say specifically that part. I can understand teachers are doing such this but i think of it out of respect for our country. Some people that feel that others beliefs are forced onto them such as the pledge of Allegiance.