The Concept Of Religion: Constitional Law

The Concept of Religion
Grand Canyon University
Constitional Law
531
Sameer Patel
April 3, 2013 The Concept of Religion
The first amendment states that there is to be a separation of state and religion. The founding fathers of this country wrote the amendments however, they did not follow what they wrote. They opened meeting with prayer. The public schools said the Our Father prayer and also in the morning they had a bible reading. Until one person made the decision that it was a violation of her first amendment rights. Now it is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Now what is up for questioning is in our pledge of allegiance there is a phrase “one nation under God” and on our money it says “in God we trust” neither
one are promoting any one religion and therefore to me are not in violation of the 1st amendment. However, we have folks that say it is a violation.
The question calls for an examination of the concept of establishment of religion and the relevancy of three cases one being the Zorach v. Clauson This case discussed the State of New York and its practice that allowed students to leave school during school hours with the parents’ written permission to attend religious functions. The church or the religious would then report back to the public school
“The three-part Lemon Test that was used for the court’s determination to see if the State of New York was in violation of the first amendment and it is as follows:
(1) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause.
2) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
(3) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause.
The findings were as follows that if all of the factors were not present then there would

be no violations of the Lemon test. Henceforth, there will be no violation of the 1st

amendment separation of State and Church.” (law.justia.com) (Wagman, Robert J, The First Amendment book).

I remember in the early seventies the schools had title one and title seven one of these

brought secular books to the parochial schools in new jersey and the other was to provide reading

to the parochial l schools. The, (the state) provided a trailer, the teacher and the books. The trailer

was to satisfy the first amendment and place a separation between church and state and in

addition it provided all students with the same fundamental secular teachings.

In the case of Mueller v. Allen, 464 U.S. 388, the setting of this case is Minnesota and the

brunt of the case is that the state of Minnesota allowed a deduction on the individual taxes for the

parents of a child who attended parochial schools to participate in certain deductions on their

taxes such as "tuition, textbooks and transportation.
The challenge was section 290.09, subd. 22, the claim of the partitions was that by allowing this deduction it would be a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The claim also stated that by the state allowing these certain deduction that it was allowing contributions that were financial to the parochial schools and were in direct violations of the first amendment.
The courts held that the decision to allow the deductions code 290.09, subd. 22, and was not in violation of the first amendment and that the deductions were not promoting religion nor was it inhibiting religion. It was declared” neutral on its’ face”. Therefore, the deductions will be allowed. The courts in their decision process likened that deduction to a deduction to medical expenses or a charitable deduction which are allowed for the parents to take on their individual and therefore would not be held as a violation to the first amendment of the
Constitution. In the case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia this case was different because the

University would not pay to fund a newspaper publication, (WAP), because it’s slant was

Christian.
This paper was not a neutral it did in fact promote Christianity. In this case I say that the University acted correctly in not funding the newspaper, (WAP). This was not a violation of free speech as the writers of WAP would have you to think. Student funds would be used to fund the project if it were not in violation of the first amendment. My thoughts on all three of these cases are that the courts did rule correctly according to the Constitution. I also believe that it is only a few Americans that raise so much havoc. After all, it only took one person to raise cane about prayer in school and it changed history. Now there are complaints about everything. What is not understood that if they keep removing God from the government than we are really going to be in trouble. Don’t believe me just look at how the Koreans are going to send bombs here. Also now the homosexuals are claiming protection under the equal protection. This is a backwards kingdom they won’t allow God in public schools but they have readers with homosexuality, Johnny has two daddy’s, how revolting and no one complains about that. The Constitution did not make provisions for them but they are so accepted. All I can say is that may God help us
all.

Bibliography: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/psdp/consti.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause#ixzz2PjRqxbbVU.S. Supreme Court

http:// www.law.justia.com/1st amendment/establishment-clause

Wagman, Robert J. The First Amendment book