|
|
|
|
Separation of Church and State Preface This site has become much more extensive than I had originally intended. What began as an outlet for me to express my rather strong opinions about the separation of church and state, following the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance, became a relentless search for information and opinions regarding this subject. The result, I hope, is a valuable resource on the religion clauses of the First Amendment and issues involving the separation of church and state. I have definite opinions regarding these issues and have included them along with those from a number of other sources on this site. I have tried to include examples of all possible viewpoints, featuring Letters to the Editor of the Richmond Times Dispatch and articles from the following web sites: Constitutional Principle, Religious Freedom Home Page, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, American Civil Liberties Union, American Center for Law and Justice, and Christian Answers, but if you have an opinion that is not expressed, I would be glad to include it. My email address is boballey@attbi.com. I have also included news accounts of the Pledge ruling, many of which have background information on general church and state issues. Finally, there are links and brief descriptions of relevant Historical documents and Supreme Court Cases with a FindLaw Search Box at the bottom of the page. My hope is that those on all sides of issues involving church and state will find this site useful. The site is dedicated to my father, Robert S. Alley, who, following family tradition, taught me about freedom and justice. Introduction On June 26, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled 2-1 in Michael A. Newdow v. US Congress, et al. (2002) that a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. This means, the court held, that the Pledge may no longer be sponsored by public schools. This ruling sparked much comment in the media. Issues that have arisen other than whether the court ruling was correct include the meaning of the First Amendment and whether the United States is a Christian nation. Ross Mackenzie, a columnist for the Richmond Times Dispatch, asserted that we are indeed a Christian nation in a column entitled Under God: A Piece of Cake Easier than even 'Re Went to the Store on July 4. Many of the letters cited below were in response to this column. I have written two letters to the Richmond Times Dispatch in the last three weeks concerning this issue. The first was in response to a letter published on July 8 entitled First Amendment Limits Congress, Not Us. The second responded to three letters published under the banner Christian Nation Provokes Debate on July 29. My first letter was published on July 21 along with several others. The second letter was not published since it was submitted so soon after the first one. There was a letter in the July 30 edition of the Richmond Times Dispatch entitled Founders Created Christian Nation in which there were references to David Barton and Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. (1892). Three more letters on the subject were published on July 31 under the headline T-D Readers Weigh In on the Pledge. Relevant letters were also published on July 12, July 14, July 15, July 17, July 18, and July 28. About a year later, on September 2, 2003, the Richmond Times Dispatch published an editorial entitled Endowed? in which the author asked the question, "Can government acknowledge God?" I wrote a letter responding that government should neither acknowledge nor deny the existence of God. It was a rather long letter, and they chose not to publish it, but I think it is a well reasoned response to all of the arguments made in the editorial. Read them both and let me know what you think. The text of the editorial and my letter may be accessed by clicking on Endowed? and letter. The Pledge case was argued before the Supreme Court in the Spring of 2004. I used this case in my Government class for a simulation of the Supreme Court. Click on Mock Supreme Court for details about the assignment and Pledge of Allegiance Resources for all the background, latest news, and legal documents regarding this case. "On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case, Elk Grove v. Newdow, No. 02-1624. The Court ruled that Michael Newdow, the California atheist who brought suit on behalf of his daughter, lacked standing to sue because the child's mother, Sandra Banning, has "what amounts to a tie-breaking vote" on issues related to the child's education." This leaves the Constitutional question unresolved. Undoubtedly it will come up again. Below are links to articles and essays related to all the letters mentioned above and the Separation of Church and State. News Accounts
Web Sites
Other Relevant Web Sites
Various Articles Historical Documents - Most of the documents below are provided by this fantastic American history web site.
Supreme Court Cases - For a summary of issues and cases involving the religion clauses click here. Below are links to most of the important church and state cases. In addition to Find Law, another excellent source of information on law and the Supreme Court is the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) - Drawing from their ruling in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Court found that a compulsory school attendance law violated the free exercise rights of Amish parents who believed high school attendance to be contrary to their religion. Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973) - Struck down various types of state aid to private and parochial schools including a tuition reimbursement program for parents of children attending nonpublic schools on the grounds that it violated the second prong of the Lemon Test. Meek v. Pittenger (1975) - Expanding on Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1973), the Court found that several state programs giving aid to parochial schools failed the Lemon Test and therefore violated the Establishment Clause. Consistent with the "child benefit" theory put forth in Cochran v. Board of Education (1930), Everson v. Board of Education (1947), and Board of Education v. Allen (1968), aid for the purchase of textbooks was allowed. Stone v. Graham (1980) - Struck down a state law requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State as having no secular legislative purpose, and therefore violating the Establishment Clause. Widmar v. Vincent (1981) - The Court ruled that public universities which allowed political student-led groups to use campus buildings for their meetings could not deny equal privileges to a Christian student group on campus. Marsh v. Chambers (1983) - The Court rejected a claim that a chaplain paid with state funds and conducting a prayer at the beginning of each session of the state legislature represented a violation of the Establishment Clause on the grounds that the U.S. Congress had been doing the same for over 200 years. Mueller v. Allen (1983) - The Court ruled that a state program allowing parents to deduct educational expenses, including tuition at parochial schools, on their income taxes did not violate the Establishment Clause. Their reasoning was based on the fact that this was one of many deductions offered to taxpayers and that it was available to parents of public and private school students. Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) - Using American history as the basis for its decision, the Court ruled that a Christmas display, including among other things a nativity scene, erected by a city in a park located in the heart of the shopping district and owned by a nonprofit organization did not violate the Establishment Clause. Combined with Marsh v. Chambers (1983) and Mueller v. Allen (1983), this seemed to represent a shift on the Court to a more "accommodationist" view of the Establishment Clause. Justice O'Connor advocated an endorsement test in a concurring opinion. Grand Rapids v. Ball (1985) - The Court ruled that two programs entitled Shared Time and Community Education gave aid to parochial schools that, while having a secular purpose had the effect of promoting religion and therefore violated the Establishment Clause. Aguilar v. Felton (1985) - Decided on the same day as Grand Rapids v. Ball (1985), the Court found a similar aid program to be unconstitutional. Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) - Struck down a state law authorizing a one minute period of silence in public schools for the purpose of "meditation or voluntary prayer" as a violation of the Establishment Clause. Justice O'Connor, in a concurring opinion, held out the possibility that a differently worded moment of silence law might pass muster. The minority saw the law as an example of "benevolent neutrality", and Justice Rehnquist attacked the doctrine of strict separation and the reliance on the "wall of separation" metaphor as "bad history". Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) - Struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution in public schools unless accompanied by instruction in the theory of "creation science" as lacking a secular purpose and therefore a violation of the Establishment Clause. Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) - Upheld the Adolescent Family Life Act, which authorizes federal grants to public or nonprofit private organizations or agencies for services and research in the area of premarital adolescent sexual relations and pregnancy. Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989) - This case dealt with two recurring holiday displays on public property. The Court found that while a Menorah displayed next to a Christmas tree outside of a county office building did not violate the Establishment Clause, a nativity scene displayed by itself in the county courthouse one block away did. This can be seen as a refusal to extend the decision reached in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984). West Side Community School v. Mergens (1990) - The Court found that the Equal Access Act, 1984 did not violate the Establishment Clause, allowing the formation of religiously based clubs in public schools. Oregon v. Smith (1990) - The Court ruled that the denial of unemployment benefits to members of the Native American Church who were fired because of their sacramental use of peyote did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This case is most noteworthy because, in his majority opinion, Justice Scalia rejected the "compelling governmental interest" test as a basis for decisions in free exercise cases, which led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Lee v. Weisman (1992) - The Court found an invitation by a public school to a local clergyman to have an invocation and benediction during the graduation ceremonies to be a violation of the Establishment Clause. Zobrest v. Catalina (1993) - The Court ruled that a public school district supplying a sign language interpreter for a deaf child at a Roman Catholic high school did not violate the Establishment Clause. Church of Babalu v. Hialeah (1993) - Struck down a law, passed in reaction to the practices of the Santeria religion, that outlawed animal sacrifice as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Lambs Chapel v. Moriches Union Free School (1994) - Capitol Square Review v. Pinnette (1995) - The Court found that an unattended cross placed in a square used as a public forum and for public activities by the Ku Klux Klan during the Christmas season did not violate the Establishment Clause. Michael A. Newdow v. US Congress, et al. (2002) - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 1954 act of Congress inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
