Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Legal Issues The First Ammendment Dealing with the seperation of Church and State The First Ammendment Dealing with the seperation of Church and State Is it unconstitutional for local, state or federal governments to favor one religion over another? Government can show favoritism toward religion by displaying religious symbols in public places at taxpayer expense, by sponsoring events like Christmas concerts, caroling, by supporting the teaching of religious ideas, or even by supporting the teaching of creationism in public schools. It appears the United States government has had a history of favoring Christianity. The United States government's favoritism of Christianity is a clear violation of the First Amendment. This amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There is another reference to religion in Article 6, Section 3. This clause states "the United States and the several States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution, but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html). For the purpose of this paper I am going to focus on the establishment of religion above mentioned in the The influence of religion on humankind can be traced back to the first records of history. Ever since colonial times, the protection of personal freedoms in the United States has been significantly important (Klinker, 1991: 109). The original Constitution did not contain a bill of rights because the convention delegates felt that individual rights were in no danger and would be protected by the states. However, the lack of a bill of rights was the strongest objection to the ratification of the Constitution (Klinker:109-110). Even in the early stages of American history there was an urge to put legally protected freedoms into written government documents. The result was the drafting of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, by James Madison (Klinker: 110-111). The applications of the personal freedoms described in the Bill of Rights, particularly the freedom of speech, have been challenged repeatedly in American courts of law and elsewhere. These incidents and challenges of authority reflect the defensive American attitude toward the ever important freedom of expression and the growing significance of personal rights throughout American history. The church became intermingled with politics and became a strong entity. The policies delivered from the church had more authority than the local rulers and magistrates of the developing feudal system. For example, St. Augustine wrote about war and what justified its enactment against fellow men (Witt, 1998: 99). This policy was followed and adhered to for hundreds of years after St. Augustine wrote it. Another example, is the use of the Bible as a guideline for establishing governing systems. Scripture portrayed God as choosing the king of the people. The Pope, being God's "representative" was then given the authority to crown the king. This crowning process gave the Pope large influence in the political arena. This ritual continued for a One could recognize the beliefs of many religions or none. One could play music from several religions or non-religious music. Religion is a personal belief. There are so many religions to choose from, including the choice of no religion. It is impossible to decide that one belief is right and another is wrong. So it is reasonable to say that it is unconstitutional for government to favor one religion over others including atheism. Public school prayer discriminates against some religious views so it is prohibited in public schools. Similarly, Christmas concerts play a role similar to the teaching of creationism and prayer (Grunes, 1989: 470). The Christmas concerts subconsciously influence students toward the beliefs of Christianity. To be fair to non-Christian groups, converting "Christmas" concerts to "Holiday" concerts would maintain the "separation of There have been several court cases on this and related issues which include Engel vs. Vitale, Everson vs. the Board of Education, and Lynch vs. Donnelly, the "Creche case" (Klinker, 1991: 93). In 1947, in the Everson vs. Board of Education case, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment prevented the States and the and the Federal government from setting up a church, passing laws that favor any religion, or using tax money to support any religion. Justice Hugo Black "incorporated" the First Amendment's establishment clause into the 14th Amendment which states that "the State shall not deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws and due process” (Klinker: 93-94). After this trial, people began to question whether school The "Creche case," Lynch vs. Donnelly, came from Rhode Island in 1980. In this case, the city official included a creche, or nativity scene, in their city's annual Christmas display that included all traditional Christmas symbols (Witt, 1998: 99). Chief Justice Warren E. Burger represented the court's opinion when he stated that, "Nor does the constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any" (Witt: 99). Justices Brennan, Marshall, Blackman, and Stevens dissented. They thought the "primary effect of including a nativity scene in the city's display is. . . to place the government's imprimatur approval on the particular religion's beliefs exemplified by the creche." (Witt: 99) They argued that it clearly violated the First These cases demonstrate a pattern of Constitutional thought by high courts prohibiting the promotion of particular religious ideas, and the spending of tax dollars on events that assist specific religious views. A logical concept of this pattern can be made to the spending of tax dollars for decorating towns on religious holidays, such as Local, state, and federal governments attempt to get around the prohibitions of the Everson and Lynch cases by decorating the streets in town with non-religious symbols such as lights, trees, wreaths and other objects that symbolize the season. But, religious people think the season itself has religious meaning. Using tax money to decorate for a religious holiday not celebrated by everyone is unconstitutional because these symbols support one religion over no religion. The First Amendment prohibits this (www.house.gov/Constitution/Ammend.html). The issue of teaching creationism in the public schools has long been debated. Over the years many different arguments have been made. First creationists tried to have the teaching of evolution outlawed (Grunes, 1989: 465). This issue went to the Supreme Court in 1968, where in Epperson v. Arkansas the high court ruled against banning the teaching of evolution. Soon after this decision creationists began to call for 'equal time', or the equal treatment of creation theory and evolution theory(Grunes: 465). When this attempt also failed creationists turned to 'creation science' ( Ruse, 1988: 288). Today the major argument for the teaching of creationism in public schools is that creationism is a scientific theory and thus should be taught alongside evolution. The combatants against creationism being taught in public schools are those who believe creation science is bad science and those who believe it violates the separation of church and state. Supporters of creation science are organizations that are collectively referred to as the New Christian Right, such as the Institute for Creation Research. On the other hand, those who oppose creation science are usually scientists, educators, and civil liberties organizations There are also those who believe creationism should not be taught because it is bad science. Scientists who have studied the claims of scientific creationism state that it "misstates evolutionary theory, presents erroneous data, and reveals a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science" (Scott, 1994: 10). For example, creation scientists often use quotes that look as if to challenge evolution, but they are often taken out of context and these quotes from scientific literature actually are questioning the 'how' of evolution (Ruse, 1998: 289). In Scientific Creationism a quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky is used which makes the reader believe he is questioning evolution (Ruse: 289). Theodosius Dobzhansky is one of the greatest supporters of evolution. Ruse writes that philosophically and methodologically the creationists do not act like scientists, and that substantively the creationist's contentions are without scientific merit (1988: 290). Ruse also says that science must be informative, testable, and dependent (1988: 301). In the Epperson v. Arkansas decision the argument that creationism is scientific was rejected because of the fact that it did not satisfy the criteria of a science and did not bestow scientific methodology (Grunes, 1989: 471). This issue may never end up being resolved. States have passed laws pertaining to the teaching of creation, but these laws have ended up being ruled illegal by the federal courts (Scott, 1994: 12). The real issue may not be if creationism is scientific, or if it is religious. It may be whether the law, and those who enforce the law, will ever allow anything other than the evolution theory to be taught in the public schools. In 1962 the Supreme Court decided that public schools did not have the power to authorize school prayer (Scott, 1994: 13). This decision made public school in the U.S. more atheistic than many European nations. For example, crosses still hang on the classroom walls in Poland, and the Ten Commandments are displayed in Hungary. There are prayers held at the beginning of legislative and judicial sessions and every President has mentioned a divine power in his inaugural speech (Scott, 1994: 13). In keeping with a spirit of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment, there is no reason why students should not be allowed to have a moment of silence during the school day when The First Amendment is of a great importance to the American people because it describes there freedom that they have. However, the First Amendment has many different interpretations that people are attaching to it. People took this amendment to mean that the government was not intended to be banned from assisting religion or was intended to be erased from public or government officials. The government today cannot force a group of Americans to take part in any subject dealing with religion. Examples of this are the Star-Spangled Banner, pledge of allegiance, and prayer (Witt, 1988: 103). Government officials are supposed to be impartial to religion or, rather, the public is not supposed to know where officials stand on this issue. Teachers are government officials because they are paid on a public payroll by the taxpayers of America (370 U.S. Sec. 421). Public schools must to be very careful to neither discriminate for nor against any single religion, and people often incorrectly perceive the schools' attitudes toward religion. The First Amendment states very plainly that Congress is not allowed to make any law which involves the establishment of religion or interferes with the right of the citizens of this country to freely practice the religion of their choice (www.house.gov/Constitution/Ammend.html). There is no question of ambiguity or vague wording in the First Amendment. No other democratic society in the world permits personal freedoms to the degree of the United States of America. Within the last sixty years, American courts, especially the Supreme Court, have developed a set of legal doctrines that thoroughly protect all forms of the freedom of expression (Klinker, 1991: 93). When it comes to evaluating the degree to which we take advantage of the opportunity to express our opinions, some members of society may be guilty of violating the bounds of the First Amendment by publicly offending others through oppression of their religion. Americans have developed a distinct disposition toward the freedom of expression throughout history. The First Amendment clearly voices a great American respect toward the freedom of religion. Although people argue that the Constitution is irrelevant today because it doesn't properly define the goals of American Government (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm), the Constitution has not become irrelevant, and it is still the driving force behind our government. American's idea of rights are shaped daily by the Bill of Rights and the acts that Congress is prohibited to Bibliography: Bibliography Grunes, Rodney A. (Autumn 1989). “Creationism, the Courts, and the First Amendment,” in Journal of Church and State, 456-86 Klinker, Philip A. (1991). The American Heritage History of the Bill of Rights. Silver Burdett Press. Rawle, William. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm Ruse, Michael. (1988). But Is It Science? Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books. Scott, Eugenie C. (July 1994). The Struggle for the Schools. Natural History 10-13. Witt, Elder (1988). The Supreme Court and Individual Rights. Washington D.C.: Second Edition, Congressional Quarterly Inc. www.house.gov/Constitution/Ammend.html Word Count: 2002
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.