DOCSLIB.ORG

Establishment Clause Limits on Governmental Interference with Religious Organizations Carl H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Spring 1984 Establishment Clause Limits on Governmental Interference with Religious Organizations Carl H. Esbeck University of Missouri School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/facpubs Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Carl H. Esbeck, Establishment Clause Limits On Governmental Interference With Religious Organizations, 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 347 (1984) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW Volume 41 Spring 1984 Number 2 ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE LIMITS ON GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS CARL H. ESBECK* . I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 347 II. HISTORY AS AN AID TO UNDERSTANDING ................. 352 A. Colonial Beginnings ............................... 354 B. The Principle is Born ............................. 360 C. The First Congress ............................... 361 D. Changing Times .................................. 365 III. INDEPENDENT, VOLUNTARISTIC CHURCHES IN A SECULAR STATE ...................................... 369 IV. THE CASE LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT ................ 379 A. The Nonentanglement Requirement .................. 382 B. Avoiding Intrafaith Disputes ....................... 390 C. The "Fervency Test" ............................. 397 V. THE CASE LAW IN THE LOWER COURTS ................. 398 A. Labor & Equal Employment Legislation ............ 400 B. Regulation of Religious Social Welfare Agencies ..... 410 C. Private Law Actions for Religious Fraud & Other Torts ...................................... 414 VI. CONCLUSION ......................................... 419 I. INTRODUCTION Despite occasional sharp divisions within the United States Supreme Court, since Everson v. Board of Education' the Court unwaveringly has construed * Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri-Columbia. B.S., 1971, Iowa State University; J.D., 1974, Cornell University. The author would like to acknowledge the research assistance of Ronald Conway in the preparation of this article. 1. 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (5-4 decision upholding reimbursement to parents of fares paid for transportation of their children to parochial schools). HeinOnline -- 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 347 1984 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:347 the establishment clause2 to place a formidable obstacle before religious groups who seek to use the offices of government to advance their cause. In placing distance between the agencies of government and religious entities, however, the establishment clause also protects these same religious organizations from undue interference by government. The establishment clause should not only check encroachment by the church, but in the seventeenth century perception of Roger Williams, the establishment clause should prevent "worldly corrup- tions [that] might consume the churches if sturdy fences against the [govern- ment] were not maintained." 3 In this article it will be argued that the establishment clause, properly viewed, functions as a structural provision regimenting the nature and degree of involvement between government and religious associations." The degree of involvement should be a limited one, although it is clear that the interrela- tionship need not nor cannot be eliminated altogether.5 Although the degree of desired separation has proven to be a continuing controversy, the goal of separation is not so divisive. The aim of separation of church and government is for each to give the other sufficient breathing space.6 The ordering principle is reciprocity in which "both religion and government can best work to achieve their lofty aims if each is left free from the other within its respective sphere." 7 Those who were influential in our nation's history envisioned the churches and the state in a kind of parallelism, with neither subordinate to the other.' Each should be guarded from being co-opted by the other, and each required to forbear from undue entanglement with the instrumentalities of the other., Importantly, if the clause's structural ordering of these two circles of influence in society is reciprocal, then religious organizations are afforded a high level of protection from governmental interference. The principle inherent in the establishment clause has come to be called the separation of church and state. The familiar metaphor, "wall of 2. U.S. CONST. amend. I. The establishment and free exercise clauses together read: "Con- gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... ." Id. 3. M. HowE, Tim GARDEN AND THE NVIDERNEss: RELIGION AND GovERNmET IN AmElICAN CONSTITUTIONAL HIsToRY 6 (1965). See infra text accompanying notes 70, 74-77 (discussion of Roger Williams (1603-1683) and his contribution to religious liberty). 4. R. LEE, A LAWYER LOOKS AT THE CoNsTrrUTION 129, 135 (1981); see J. ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST 94 (1980). 5. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971); School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213, 225 (1963); id. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 315 (1952). 6. J. ELY, supra note 4, at 94. 7. McCollum v. Bd. of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 212 (1948) (disallowing religious instruction in public schools); cf. L. TRIE, AMERICAN CONSTrruTiONAL LAW §14-3, at 817 (1978). 8. Derr, The FirstAmendment As A Guide to Church-State Relations: Theological Illusions, Cultural Fantasies, and Legal Practicalities,CHURCH, STATE AND PoLrics 75, 82 (J. Hensel ed. 1981). 9. See infra text accompanying notes 166-70 (manner in which religious organizations are harmed by too close an embrace by government). HeinOnline -- 41 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 348 1984 1984] ESTABLISHMENT CLA USE LIMITS separation,' ' I however, is a little misleading." Separation severs the formal link between church and government, but it does not disassociate religion from government.' 2 In some instances, considerable interaction is not only permit- ted but constitutionally protected. For example, religious organizations may seek to influence the government's policies through use of speech, press, and petition.' 3 A more apt description of the American arrangement is a limita- tion on any mutual dependence, "both as the Church might seek to control the organic action of the state, and as the state might affect to interfere with the faith and function of the church.""' Nevertheless, the separation terminology describing this ideal is so entrenched in the literature and the case law that its use will be continued here. Although the lower courts are construing the establishment clause as protecting religious groups,' 5 the Supreme Court has been timid and has not frontally addressed and developed the protection for religious groups in- tended by the clause.' 6 To be sure, the Court's aggressiveness in preventing 10. The "wall of separation" metaphor is that of Thomas Jefferson appearing in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802), reprintedin S. PADOVER, THE CoMPLEa JEF- FERSON 518-19 (2d ed. 1969). It was first adopted by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1878), and was carried into the modern era by Justice Black in Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16, 18 (1947), and McCollum v. Board of Educ., 333 U.S. 203, 311, 212 (1948). See generally Comment, Jefferson and the Church-State Wall: A Historical Examination of the Man and the Metaphor, 1978 B.Y.U.L. Rv.645. 11. Miller, The American Theory of Religious Liberty, FREEDoM OF RELIGION IN AmERICA: HISTORICAl. RooTs, PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTS AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEIS 137, 138 (H. Clark ed. 1981). The Supreme Court has not held to the notion of an impregnable wall of separation: "Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense.... [T]he line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971). 12. School Dist. of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963) ("We agree of course that the state may not establish 'a religion of secularism' in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus 'preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.' "); id. at 306 (Goldberg, J., concurring); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 315 (1952) ("We cannot read into the Bill of Rights ...a philosophy of hostility to religion."). See M. BATES, RELIGIOuS LIBERTY: AN INQuiRY 321 (1945) ("It is often observed that entire separa- tion does not exist, if religion has any vitality or respect in the community and if the state is favorable to the development of the higher interests of its citizens."); Smith, Is the Separation of Church and State an Illusion?, 8 CHRISTENDOMt 317 (1943) ("A church separated from the state is not a church removed from society."). See generally H. BERMAN, THE INTERACTION OF LAW AND RELIGION 77-105 (1974). Professor Berman develops the thesis that all religions have a concern for social order and social justice which causes them to be concerned
Recommended publications
  • Mitchell V. Helms: Does Government Aid to Religious Schools Violate the First Amendment? an Extensive Analysis of the Decision and Its Repercussions

    Mitchell V. Helms: Does Government Aid to Religious Schools Violate the First Amendment? an Extensive Analysis of the Decision and Its Repercussions

    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 41 Number 2 Volume 41, Fall 2001, Number 2 Article 5 Mitchell v. Helms: Does Government Aid to Religious Schools Violate the First Amendment? An Extensive Analysis of the Decision and Its Repercussions Peter Swift Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MITCHELL v. HELMS: DOES GOVERNMENT AID TO RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT? AN EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS PETER A. SWIFT* INTRODUCTION The United States Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting legislation regarding the establishment of religion.' The Establishment Clause grows out of the First Amendment and not only prohibits the institution of an official church, but also bars the use of public funds for religious institutions. 2 The religion *J.D. Candidate, June 2002, St. John's University School of Law. B.A./B.S. University of Scranton, summa cum laude (1998). 1 See U.S. CONST. amend. I. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ..." Id.; see also Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947) (setting a standard by which religion clauses were to be interpreted by holding that neither the state or federal government can set up a religion).
  • Lee V. Weisman: a New Age for Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? Elizabeth Brandt University of Idaho College of Law, Ebrandt@Uidaho.Edu

    Lee V. Weisman: a New Age for Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? Elizabeth Brandt University of Idaho College of Law, [email protected]

    UIdaho Law Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law Articles Faculty Works 1993 Lee v. Weisman: A New Age for Establishment Clause Jurisprudence? Elizabeth Brandt University of Idaho College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation 23 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 535 (1993) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Works at Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LEE v. WEISMAN: A NEW AGE FOR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE?* ELIZABETH BARKER BRANDT** I. INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court's most recent opinion in the area of the Establishment Clause, while purporting not to question existing precedent, injects a new standard - coercion - into the re- quirements for proving an Establishment Clause violation. In the majority opinion in Lee v. Weisman,' Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Blackmun, Souter, O'Connor and Stevens, os- tensibly declined to overrule Lemon v. Kurtzman,2 the touch- stone of the Court's modern Establishment Clause jurispru- dence. Surprisingly, however, other than declining to reconsider Lemon and mentioning the case in the context of reviewing the holdings of the lower courts, Justice Kennedy never again cited Lemon in his opinion. He did not undertake an identifiable anal- ysis or application of the three elements of the Lemon test. In a concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun engaged in a traditional application of Lemon.
  • Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor V

    Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor V

    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 35 Issue 1 Article 8 1984 Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination Gale Westhafer Kathryn M. Hartrick Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gale Westhafer and Kathryn M. Hartrick, Resolving the Free Exercise and Establishment Conflict in Caldor v. Thornton: Anlysis of Legislation Designed to Protect Religious Freedom or Prevent Religious Discrimination, 35 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 132 (1984) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol35/iss1/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Note RESOLVING THE FREE EXERCISE AND ESTABLISHMENT CONFLICT IN CALDOR V. THORNTON: ANALYSIS OF LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR PREVENT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION In Caldor v. Thornton, the Connecticut Supreme Court found that a statute permit- ting employees to refuse to work on their sabbath violated the first amendment as an impermissible establishment of religion. This Case Note argues that the Connecticut Supreme Court incorrectly applied the current establishment clause test and should
  • The First Amendment's Implied Political Establishment Clause Robert D

    The First Amendment's Implied Political Establishment Clause Robert D

    The First Amendment's Implied Political Establishment Clause Robert D. Kamenshinet INTRODUCTION The freedom-of-speech clause of the first amendment contains no express prohibition against political establishment-the advocacy of political viewpoints by or with the assistance of government.' That clause prohibits only government interference with the freedom of ex- pression. In contrast, the first amendment's religious freedom provi- sion explicitly forbids the government from restricting the free exercise of religion and from establishing religion.2 This Article proposes that the courts should read the first amend- ment to contain an implied prohibition against political establishment. It further argues that traditional analysis under the religious establish- ment clause is instructive of how courts should implement the political establishment prohibition. The premise of this new reading is that par- ticipation by the government in the dissemination of political ideas poses a threat to open public debate that is distinct from government impairment of individual expression. Programs of direct government dissemination and private dissemination that is government subsidized not only inform but also persuade. The government has the potential to use its unmatched arsenal of media resources and legislative prerog- atives to obtain political ends, to nullify the effectiveness of criticism, and, thus, to undermine the principle of self-government. The free ex- ercise of political rights, therefore, depends as much on a guarantee against political establishment as it does on the guarantee against inter- ference with free speech. Part I of this Article develops the theoretical basis for the political establishment prohibition. It demonstrates that the implication of such a prohibition is necessary and, as the similar implication of the freedom t Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University.
  • Spiritual-Treatment Exemptions to Child Neglect Statutes—State V

    Spiritual-Treatment Exemptions to Child Neglect Statutes—State V

    Spiritual-Treatment Exemptions to Child Neglect Statutes—State v. Crank: Vagueness and Establishment Clause Challenges to Selective Prosecution of Faith-Healing Parents PABLO J. DAVIS* I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................761 II. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES ......................................................764 A. Vagueness .........................................................................764 B. Establishment Clause .......................................................766 C. Elision...............................................................................769 D. Spiritual Treatment Exemptions .......................................772 1. Early Cases ..................................................................772 2. ST Exemptions ............................................................774 3. Oklahoma ....................................................................776 4. Ohio.............................................................................777 5. California ....................................................................778 6. Minnesota ....................................................................779 7. Tennessee ....................................................................780 III. STATE V. CRANK ......................................................................781 A. Background and History...................................................781 B. The Tennessee Supreme Court’s Decision .......................783 IV. ANALYSIS OF DECISION
  • FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE LESSON PLAN Interactive Constitution: the First Amendment Project FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 2

    FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE LESSON PLAN Interactive Constitution: the First Amendment Project FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 2

    LESSON PLAN FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE LESSON PLAN Interactive Constitution: The First Amendment Project FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE 2 First Amendment: Free Exercise Clause Lesson Plan GRADE LEVELS: 11th and 12th NUMBER OF CLASS PERIODS: 1 (approximately 55 minutes) AUTHOR: Nick Hegge, National Constitution Center Teacher Advisory Board Member Nick Hegge has taught American History and U.S. Government at Logan View Public Schools in Nebraska since 2010. He graduated from Briar Cliff University, in Sioux City, in 2010, with a bachelor’s degree in History and Secondary Edu- cation. He works with students as a National History Day advisor, We the People coach, and sponsor of the Junior Class trip to Washington D.C. every school year. When teaching about the Constitution, Nick enjoys seeing students wrestle with difficult issues and develop their own conclusions about Constitutional interpretation. INTRODUCTION/LESSON OVERVIEW: The First Amendment has two clauses related to religion, specifically preventing the establishment of religion and the ability to freely exercise religious beliefs. The goal of this lesson is for students to gain a deeper understanding of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. They will do this by understanding the history of the clause, as well as the relevant Supreme Court cases that will help students interpret how this clause has been applied. Students will also use scholarly essays and the text of the U.S. Constitution to evaluate current issues and cases that involve the Free Exercise Clause. Essential Questions: • How has the Supreme Court’s application of the Free Exercise Clause changed over time? • How can we balance the right of religious liberty with laws passed by the elected branches? Objectives: • Students will understand the Supreme Court standards that have been set in cases dealing with the Free Exercise Clause.
  • World Vision, Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner ______

    World Vision, Inc. As Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner ______

    No. 15-577 In the Supreme Court of the United States ___________________ T RINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF COLUMBIA, INC., Petitioner, v. SARA PARKER PAULEY, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Respondent. ___________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ___________________ BRIEF OF WORLD VISION, INC. AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER ___________________ EUGENE VOLOKH Counsel of Record SCOTT & CYAN BANISTER AMICUS BRIEF CLINIC UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW 405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095 (310) 206-3926 [email protected] Counsel for Amicus Curiae i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether it is consistent with the Establishment Clause to let a day care center operated by a church get state funds for resurfacing its playground under an evenhanded and neutral aid program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE .................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 1 ARGUMENT ................................................................ 4 I. This Court Should Adopt the Conclusion of the Mitchell v. Helms Plurality: Evenhanded Aid Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause ....................................... 4 II. Even Under the Mitchell v. Helms Concurrence, Trinity Church Is Not Barred from Receiving Grant Aid ................................. 9 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 11 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) ..................... 10 Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) ........................... 1, 4 Comm. for Pub. Educ. & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980) ............................. 10, 11 Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947) ......... 5, 7, 8 Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S.
  • The Establishment Clause and Lee V. Weisman Overview This Lesson Will Focus on the Landmark Supreme Court Case Lee V

    The Establishment Clause and Lee V. Weisman Overview This Lesson Will Focus on the Landmark Supreme Court Case Lee V

    The Establishment Clause and Lee v. Weisman Overview This lesson will focus on the landmark Supreme Court case Lee v. Weisman, which addresses the presence of prayer at public school graduations in regard to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In this lesson, students will begin with a warm-up discussion about religion in public life, view a documentary on the case, and finally engage in an analysis of the cases that the Supreme Court relied upon in making their decision in Lee v. Weisman. Grades 9-12 North Carolina Standard Course of Study for Civics and Economics • Objective 1.07: Evaluate the extent to which the Bill of Rights extended the Constitution. • Objective 2.03: Explain how the United States Constitution grants and limits the authority of public officials and government agencies. • Objective 2.05: Analyze court cases that illustrate that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. • Objective 2.06: Analyze court cases that demonstrate how the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect the rights of individuals. North Carolina Standard Course of Study for US History • Objective 12.02: Evaluate the impact of recent constitutional amendments, court rulings, and federal legislation on United States' citizens. • Objective12.04: Identify and assess the impact of social, political, and cultural changes in the United States. Essential Questions • How does the Bill of Rights offer protection for citizens? (specifically, protection of religious freedom) • How are the rights granted in the Bill of Rights limited by interpretation of the judicial branch? • In what ways does the U.S.
  • Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses Michael S

    Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses Michael S

    Digital Commons at St. Mary's University Faculty Articles School of Law Faculty Scholarship 1991 On the Road of Good Intentions: Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses Michael S. Ariens Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.stmarytx.edu/facarticles Part of the Legal History Commons Recommended Citation Michael S. Ariens, On the Road of Good Intentions: Justice Brennan and the Religion Clauses, 27 Cal. W. L. Rev. 311 (1991). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at St. Mary's University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ON THE ROAD OF GOOD INTENTIONS: JUSTICE BRENNAN AND THE RELIGION CLAUSES MICHAEL ARIENS* INTRODUCTION When Dwight D. Eisenhower nominated William J. Brennan, Jr., on September 30, 1956, to the position of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Will Herberg's book Protestant-Catholic-Jew'had been in print for a year. Herberg's book illustrated a search in religion for identification in a secularized, middle-class America. The success of Protestant-Cathoic-Jew2 reflected an increase in the United States in church membership, a belief in God, prayer, heaven, and the Bible. Herberg's quest was a search for identity, a search for a rooted self in a society which had publicly denigrated roots in favor of the American "melting pot." This severing of roots was exacerbated by the massive post-World War II changes in housing patterns, the economy, Communist hysteria and efforts to create social and cultural conformity.
  • Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS 3.1 the Bill of Rights

    Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS 3.1 the Bill of Rights

    Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS CITIZENU.ORG 3.1 The Bill of Rights ESSENTIALS 1. The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights. 2. Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference. 3. The application of the Bill of Rights is continuously interpreted by the courts. 4. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, are enumerated liberties and rights of individuals. These amendments protect us against arbitrary government. 1. What is the underlying idea of this cartoon? 2. Nearly four in 10 Americans can’t name a single one of the five First Amendment freedoms, according to survey results. Speech enjoys the highest recall at a far-too-low 54 percent. Only 17 percent could name freedom of religion, 12 percent knew the amendment guarantees their right to assemble, 11 percent cited freedom of the press and 2 percent could name the right to petition government for a redress of grievances. Does this ignorance about our rights matter? How might we educate our citizens better about their fundamental rights? The U.S. Constitution includes a Bill of Rights specifically designed to protect individual liberties and rights. • Briefly tell the story why the Bill of Rights were added to the U.S. Constitution. • Explain the significance of the S.C. case Barren v. Baltimore (1833) • What is the difference between civil liberties and civil rights? • Explain how the Declaration of Independence has been cited as our promissory note for both liberty and equality 1 Civil liberties are constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference.
  • Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practice

    Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practice

    STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND PRACTICES by Arcot Krishnaswami Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities UNITED NATIONS STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE MATTER OF RELIGIOUS RIGHTS AND PRACTICES by Arcot Krishnaswami Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities UNITED NATIONS New York, 1960 Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev. 1 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Catalogue No.: 60. XIV. 2 Price: $U.S. 1.00; 7/- stg.; Sw. fr. 4.- (or equivalent in other currencies) NOTE The Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices is the second of a series of studies undertaken by the Sub- Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities with the authorization of the Commission on Human Rights and the Economic and Social Council. A Study of Discrimination in Education, the first of the series, was published in 1957 (Catalogue No. : 57.XIV.3). The Sub-Commission is now preparing studies on discrimination in the matter of political rights, and on discrimination in respect of the right of everyone to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. The views expressed in this study are those of the author. m / \V FOREWORD World-wide interest in ensuring the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion stems from the realization that this right is of primary importance.
  • Chapter 14: Religion

    Chapter 14: Religion

    Chapter 1144 Religion Sections 1. Religion and Sociology 2. Theoretical Perspectives 3. Religious Organiza- tion and Religiosity 4. Religion in the United States Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you will be able to • explain the sociological meaning of religion. • describe the different views of religion as seen by the major theoretical perspectives. • distinguish the basic types of religious organization. • discuss the meaning and nature of religiosity. • defi ne secularization and describe its relationship to religiosity in the United States. • discuss religious fundamentalism in the United States from the sociological perspective. 462 Applying Sociology More than thirty years after the Bea- tles’ last recording session, the group’s tapes and CDs are still selling by the millions. But there was a moment when American radio stations banned their mu- sic and many teenagers stomped on their records. The angry reaction was the result of a comment by John Lennon in a 1966 interview: “Christianity will go,” Lennon said. “It will vanish and shrink... We’re more popular than Jesus now, I don’t know which will go first—rock’n’roll or Christianity.” When the interview was published in the United States, there was an uproar that caught some by surprise. If the entire interview had been printed, the response might have been less extreme, but Lennon was forced to apologize. It seemed that many young Americans took their religion very seriously. The evidence suggests that, unlike people living in many industrialized nations, Americans are fairly religious. This chapter looks at religion as an institution, as well as at the ways that people express their religious beliefs.