Responses: 4
Agreed. 1st Amendment violations are on the rise. Especially in my Home state of Texas. This Keeps the FFRF gainfully employed throughout the year.
From uscourts.gov
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
From uscourts.gov
The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion. The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.
Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.
Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.
Check out similar cases related to Engel v. Vitale that deal with religion in schools and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The governments right to show favoritism to one religion isn't protected by the first amendment. The government should seek to stay out of the way of individual religious beliefs and practices without promoting or hindering any of them.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
"The republic endures and this is the symbol of its faith." - CHIEF JUSTICE CHARLES EVANS HUGHES Cornerstone Address - Supreme Court Building
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - This is a college in Aida, OK, if memory serves, ECU is the acronym not DoJ.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish, Thank you very much for sharing this, sir. This is just another sign of the times. Christianity is under assault right here in Mom & Dad Hometown USA. However, it's not just colleges, but some of the pseudo military institutions are removing religion and faith based emblems, plaques, scriptures, and even the ten commandments which are the foundations for not only the law of the US, but also Judaism and Islam as the Ten Commandments are found in Exodus in the Christian bible as well as in the Tora and if I'm not mistaken the Koran as well. Mr. Todd Starnes a noted reporter has cited numerous instances of this type of attack on Christianity. What's next? Judaism? What should happen, in my humble opinion,if they don't honor this chapel and what it stands for then they should allow someone to remove the whole chapel and place it somewhere where it will be utilized as intended instead of desecrated in this way. I believe the college has the right to do what it wants with its property, but a chapel is not just any building. To me (taking down the cross) its akin to taking down the US Flag from in front of or own college campuses and destroying them by burning them or trampling on them because you don't agree with everything that your country may have stood for or been founded on. Our country is always evolving and in some was becoming greater than it ever was, but this should be a cause for celebration not desecration. What happened to the public discourse and the exchanging of ideas and debating without ostracizing.
(1)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SSG (Join to see) - The space was not donated to provide a house of worship for any religion. Just one religion. Others may donate theirs. If Saudi Arabia donates to the campus for an Islamic temple, that is their right as well. After all, they have as much right to practice their religion as any one else. But, you don't see that, do you? Your comment is proof positive of that.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPT Jack Durish - The government has no business maintaining anyone's house of worship. Why you don't see that as a clear violation of the establishment clause remains a mystery to me. Churches and Mosques can exist off campus without being government buildings and there is no issue at all. If you want to have a Christian Church or a Mosque at your college campus, it should be a private school.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Mark Colwell, The Chapel was donated by a Christian Family for worship and religious use. The Cross itself identifies it as such. It wasn’t donated by Muslims or it would have had a Crescent, I’m sure.
(0)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SSG Colwell, Where is the government here? Did you read or watch the video? The College is doing this. What if you donated a wing of a University for the express purpose of teaching Scientology dedicated in your name and with your money? Then the University decide they no longer were going to use it for that purpose, but instead they were going to use it for Wicken purposes only and the removed your name and plaque from the building, what then?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next