Government Sponsoring Religion
Government Sponsoring ReligionIt is 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, or by supporting the teaching of religious ideas. 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 under the
United States."
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".
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. After this trial, people began to question whether
school prayer was constitutional (pg. 93-94, Klinker).
The "creche case," Lynch vs. Donnelly, came from Rhode Island
in 1980. In this case, the city offical included a creche, or nativity
scene, in their city's annual Christmas display that included all
traditional Christmas symbols. 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." 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 impremature approval on the particular
religion's beliefs exemplified by the creche." They argued...
To view the complete essay, you be registered.