5. Your Right against the Establishment of Religion. **
1. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION.
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion."
2. DOES THIS APPLY TO STATE AND LOCAL LAWS?
At the time when the Constitution was ratified, most states had an official religion or used state resources to support religious activities. Most of these policies ended in the next few years.
It was not until 1940 that the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment's protection of free exercise and protection from establishment of religion to both state and local laws. This was the case of Seventh Day Adventists playing anti-Catholic records on the streets of a heavily Catholic district without a permit that was discussed in the prior essay of "Free Exercise" of religion.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 1940.
3. IS THERE A BALANCING TEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT CASES?
The courts have developed a three-question test for analyzing laws or policies that may support a religion.
Does the law or policy have a secular purpose? Does the law or policy have a primary effect that either advances or inhibits a religion? Does the law or policy produce excessive government entanglement with religion?
This was outlined in the Lemon case discussed below.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971.
This was outlined in the Lemon case discussed below.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971.
4. THERE ARE SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF ESTABLISHMENT CASES.
a, What government actions reflect impermissible endorsements of religion?
b. Who has standing to sue if they believe government is establishing or endorsing a religion?
c. Can government give indirect or direct aid to a parochial school or student?
d. What policies are impermissible for to public schools or facilities?
e. Are there different policies that are permissible for secular or sectarian colleges?
f. Are special rules allowed for the military, prisons, or other government entities?
g. What can be learned about obsession with the Establishment Clause?
5. DO GOVERNMENT POLICIES ACT AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF RELIGION?
1. TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE: The Supreme Court upheld property tax exemptions for religious institutions. It held that the exemption was granted to all non-profit institutions, that taxation of religious property would lead to excessive entanglement of government with religions, and that two centuries of exemptions had not led to establishment of a religion.
Waltz v. Tax Commission, 1968.
2. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE EQUAL: The Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota reporting requirement that exempted religious charities from reporting requirements if more than half of their revenue came from members of the faith, but required reporting from charities that raised more than galf of their revenues from non-members, such as the Unification Church.
Larson v. Valente, 1982.
3. "IN GOD WE TRUST": In 1956, Congress adopted "In God We Trust" as the motto of the United States and had it graven on our coinage and currency. The Supreme Court sustained a lower court decision that this was not an endorsement of any religion. The Supreme Court upheld a Nonth Circuit decision that the motto did not constitute an endorsement of religion.
Aronow v. United States, 1970.
4. "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD": In 1954, Congress inserted the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A California law required teachers to lead their students in reciting the Pledge. The Supreme Court held that a non-custodial parent lacked standing to challenge the California law.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 2004.
In a later lawsuit on the same grounds, the Ninth Circuit held that the phrase "Under God" was not an endorsement or establishment of religion.
5. CHAPLAINS ARE PERMISSIBLE: A Nebraska state senator challenged the employment of a legislative chaplain and a prayer at the start of each legislative session. The Supreme Court held that this was not an endorsement or establishment of a religion.
Marsh v. Chambers, 1983.
6. LEGISLATIVE PRAYERS ARE PERMISSIBLE: The Supreme Court authorized the conduct of a prayer at the start of City Council meetings.
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 2014.
7. CRECHES IN MIXED SETTING ARE PERMISSIBLE: The Supreme Court upheld Pawtucket's mixture of a Nativity scene with the Santa Clause house, reindeer, and other Christmas symbols along the city's commercial district.
Lynch v. Donnelly, 1984.
8. PRIVATE CRECHES ON PUBLIC LAND ARE PERMISSIBLE: The Supreme Court ended a municipal ban after four decades of allowing a private group to display a Nativity scene in a public park.
Scarsdale v. McCreary, 1985.
9. CRECHE OUT, MENORAH PERMISSIBLE: Pittsburh displayed a Nativity scene on a landing of the staircase at the county courthouse. At the City-County Building across the street, it displayed a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign for "liberty." The Supreme Court held that the isolated crèche was I'm[ermissible, while the menorah as part of a mixed display was permissible
County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 1989.
10. NO ISOLATED COMMANDMENTS IN CLASSROOMS: The Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law which required the posting of the 10 Commandments in each public school classroom, even though each posting bore the note that the posting was for a secular purpose and the Commandments were the basis of Western law.
Stone v. Graham, 1980.
11. TEN COMANDMENTS OKAY IN BROADER SETTING: The Supreme Court held that a statue of the Ten Comandents was not an establishment of religion when it was on the Texas State Capitol grounds aong many secular statues, even though it was posted to illustrate the role religion played in American and Texas history.
Van Order v. Perry, 2005.
12. TEN COMMANDMENTS BARRED FROM COURTROOM: On the same day as Perry, the Supreme Court struck down a framed copy of the Ten Commandments in Kentucky county courtrooms.' Because they were placed without similar secular displays, te were held to be impermissible establishment of religion by the same 5-4 majority as Perry.
McReary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 2005.
13. PRIVATE COMMANDMENTS OKAY, ALIEN PYRAMID NOT REQUIRE: The city of Pleasant Grove, Utah allowed private groups to pay for and place monuments in a public park which reflected the community's culture. It had approved a private placement of a monument with the Ten Commandments. It later rejected the placement of a pyramid with seven precepts which a minister claimed to have received from aliens when he founded his church in 1980. The Supreme Court sustained the placement of the Commandments as a reflection of the community's heritage, but upheld the city's rejection of the alien pyramid.
City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum Bonum Amon Ra, 2009.
6. ESTABLISHMENT ISSUES IN MINNESOTA IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
SATANISM IN BELLE PLAINE: The village one hour south of Minneapolis wanted to honor local veterans by placing symbols of the faiths or local or nearby veterans who had served or died in service who were of the Christtian, Jewish, or Muslim faiths. When Satanists threatened to sue if the park did not include a demonic monument, the city tried to sell the proposed veterans park to a private park, and then cancelled the veterans' park. The Satanists are now suing the village for $35,000 for their legal expenses.
CRECHES IN WADENA: To avoid a lawsuit, the city sold its Nativity scene to a private group who moved it from the city park to an abandoned space in downtown. Citizens angered by the pusillanimous city leaders have now erected hundreds of creches on every block of the railroad town that is 90 minutes northwest of Minneapolis.
BAD COLORS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Faculty, staff, and students of a department at the University of Minnesota were advised to bar the use of the colors red and green (and such symbols as Santa, wrapped gifts, and reindeer) and the colors of blue and white (and such symbols as dredels, menorahs, and bushes) during December, 2017 because these colors and symbols might offend some people.
MURALS AT THE SUPREME COURT: Over 100 years of tobacco smoke had blackened and hidden four murals in the Supreme Court chamber. When the Capitol was renovated and the murals were cleaned in 2017, the murals were found to have symbols of Judaism, Christianity, pantheism, and Confuscianism. Scholars had to hurry to state archives for data on the murals.
The murals should survive challenges under the Van Orden v. Perry standard for mixed presentations. The murals were created to show the messages of announcing the law to the people, assuring them that rulings were consistent, that separations of power were to be preserved, and that balances must be struck between the rights of individuals and the needs of the state.
The murals showed Moses bringing the Ten Commandments from the burning bush to the people, a Christian knight settling a dispute between canon lawyers and secular judges, Confucius archiving emperors' past laws and decisions so that people could be sure of fairness and consistency, and Socrates teaching students how to balance the rights of the individual and society.
7. WHO HAS STANDING TO SUE FOR GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON RELIGION?
14, FEDERAL FUNDS FOR SCHOOL BOOKS: The Supreme Court granted standing to taxpayers who sued HEW for funding secular schoolbooks for parochial students. However, the Supreme Court later that year held in Allen that such funding by states was permissible. Further, it declined to extend such a standing rule in Establishment cases in Hein in 2007.
Flast v. Cohen, 1968.
15. IMITING STANDING FOR PAINTIFS AS EITHER TAXPAYERS OR CITIZENS: The Congress allowed the Education Secretary to transfer surplus property to private groups for educational purposes. A surplus military hospital was transferred to a private group to use as a religious college. A secular group sued as taxpayers defending the waste of taxpayer resources and as a group of general citizens defending against a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case on two grounds. First, the plaintiffs had asserted no personal injury that differentiated them from any other taxpayers, so they were seeking an impermissible advisory decision on an undefined claim. For the same reason, their claim as general citizens failed.
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation, 1982.
16. NO STANDING TO SUE OVER DONATIONS TO SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP FUND: The upreme Court denied standing to plaintiffs as taxpayers in particular and general citizens in general to challenge an Arizona statute which created a tax exemption to donors who gave to a fund which gave tuition to students at parochial schools.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 2011.
SEE ALSO THE DENIAL OF STAANDING TO THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT: The non-custodial parent could not sue o behalf of his daughter to challenge the Pledge of Allegiance's "under God" language.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 2004.
17. NARROW THE "STANDING" ELIGIBILITY TO SUE ON FUNDING: The Supreme Court here sharply narrowed its 1968 Flast finding that taxpayers could be granted to sue for government spending in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Here the Court denied standing to taxpayers who challenged Executive Branch distribution of grants to religious service organizations who provided secular services. The Court noted that the grants were from discretionary "general administration" appropriations, and not from specific appropriations by Congress.
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, 2007.
8. ESTABLISHMENT CASES RELATING TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS.
18. CATHOLIC SCHOOLS ON TRIBAL LAND: The Supreme Court upheld Congressional appropriation of tribal trust funds to create Catholic schools on tribal land, holding that the treaty funds belonged to the tribes and thus the funding did not establish religion with federal funds.
Quick Bear v. Leupp, 1908.
19. RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS PERMISSIBLE: Supreme Court invalidated an Oregon law which required children to attend public schools.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925.
20. SCHOOL BOOKS FOR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS: The Supreme Court upheld a Louisiana appropriation for secular schoolbooks for parochial school students. This "child Benefit" analysis was the first approval of indirect aid to a religious institution.
Cochran v/ Louisiana State Board of Education, 1930.
Cochran v/ Louisiana State Board of Education, 1930.
21. SCHOOL BUSES FOR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS: The Supreme Court upheld New Jersey reimbursement to parents for bus transportation of students to parochial schools on public bus routes.
Everson v. Board of Education, 1947.
22. LOAN SCHOOLBOOKS TO PAROCHIAL STUDENTS: The Supreme Court upheld a New York law which required public schools to loan secular school books to students in parochial schools, holding that the loans benefited students and parents and not religions.
Board of Education v. Allen, 1968.
23. MONEY AND REGULATION TO PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS: The Supreme Court struck down Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes that provided direct aid to parochial schools but required state oversight to ensure then funds were not used for sectarian purposes. The Court held that the oversight of the school budgets would lead to impermissible entanglement.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971.
24. TUITION TAX CREDIT: The Supreme Court struck down an Ohio program to give a tuition tax credit to parents of parochial students for the secular portion of their education because it would require the state to evaluate the secular quality of the education that was to be subsidized.
Essex v. Wolman, 1972.
25. COMPENSATION FOR TESTING AND PREPARATION: The Supreme Court struck down a New York plan to provide direct funds to parochial schools for testing and teacher=prepared tests. The effect of such funding and the entanglements from supervision were impermissible.
Levitt v. Public Education And Religious Liberty (PEARL), 1973.
26. JANITORS, TUITION, AND TAX CREDITS: The Supreme Court struck down a New York plan to: provide maintenance and repairs to parochial schools; direct tuition for families with under $500 of income; and tuition tax credits to families with income between $500 and $25,000. The tuition incentives involved encouragement of various religions, and the supervision could entail entanglement.
PEARL v. Nyquist, 1973.
27. TUITION TAX CREDITS: The Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania plan to provide tax credits for families with income below $500.
Sloan v. Lemon, 1973.
28. $20 FOR BOOKS, PLUS FUNDS FOR SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT, AND SERVICES: The Supreme Court struck down a New Jersey plan to reimburse parochial students $20 for schoolbooks and to make direct payments to parochial schools for supplies, equipment, and maintenance services.
Marburger & Griggs v. Public Funds for Public Schools, 1974.
29. TEXTBOOKS OKAY, SPECIAL ED TEACHERS NOT: The Supreme Court approved a Pennsylvania plan to provide secular textbooks to parochial students under Allen. It struck down the plan's funding of state-paid teachers to parochial schools for special ed, remedial teaching, counselling, guidance, and testing services.
Meek v. Pittinger, 1975.
30. SCHOOL BOOKS, NOT FIELD TRIPS OR HOME EQUIPMENT: The Supreme Court upheld most of an Ohio plan to provide schoolbooks, state-standardized testing, state-standardized diagnostic health services, and off-campus counselling for parochial students. The Court disallowed funding for unmonitored field trips and providing at-home therapeutic equipment for families.
Wolman v. Walter, 1977.
31. NO REFUND FOR POSST-LEVITT CLAW-BACKS: In the 1973 Lemon decision, the Court had allowed schools to be held harmless for past payments of benefits. But when the 1973 Levitt decision prohibited "past, present, or future" subsidies, the Court here struck down an New York plan to compensate parochial schools for claw-backs of subsidies.
New York v. Cathedral Academy, 1977.
32. NO TAX DEDUCTION FOR PAROCHIAL TUITION: The Supreme Court struck down a $1,000 tax deduction for parochial tuition because it treated parents differently for tax purposes depending on where their children were schooled.
Byrne v. Public Funds for Public Schools, 1977.
33. ADMINISTERUNG AND GRADING STATE TESTS OKAY: The Supreme Court sustained a new New York statute that funded tests and teacher grading in all schools. This statute survived while Levitt did not because the new law did straight audit of spending in parochial schools.
Committee for Public Education And Religious Liberty (PEARL) v. Regan. 1980.
34. BUSES, BOOKS, AND TUITION OKAY: The Supreme Court sustained a Minnespta plan to allow a tax deduction of $700 for parochial students' transportation, books, and tuition. The secular purpose was to provide "wholesome competition" for public schools. The secular effects of the aid neither aided nor inhibited religion. The availability of the aid was based on the private school choices of the parents and thus did not establish a religion.
Mueller v. Allen, 1983.
35. SPECIAL ED FUNDS STRUCK, THEN REVERSED: The Supreme Court struck down a Michigan plan to pay teachers and provide teacher funds for special education services in parochial schools, because it held that all direct aid to parochial schools served to advance religion. This 1985 decision was reversed after the 1997 Agostini decision.
Grand Rapids v. Ball, 1985.
36. NO SPECIAL ED FUNDING, NP MONTHLY SUPERVISION: The Supreme Court initially struck down a New York City plan to pay for special ed teachers for educationally or economically deprived parochial students, even though the City visited and assessed the spending each month. As in Grand Rapids, the Court held that all direct aid to parochial schools advanced religion. Further, it held the monthly monitoring to be an impermissible entanglement. Again, this 1985 decision was reversed after the 1997 Agostini decision.
Aguilar v. Felton, 1985.
37. SIGN LANGUAGE AT PAROCHIAL SCHOOL: The Sipreme Court upheld a deaf student's request for sign language services at a parochial school under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA). The Court held that the services were for the student, were neutrally available, did not purposefully advance religion, and did not involve entanglement.
Zobrest v. Catalina, 1993.
38. WEAKENING THE "ENTANGLEMENT" PRONG OF THE BALANCING TEST: The Supreme Court revisited the 1985 Aguilar decision which had struck down a New York City plan to pay for special ed teachers for educationally or economically deprived parochial students, even though the City visited and assessed the spending each month.
In 1985, the Court had held that all direct aid to parochial schools impermissibly advanced religion, and that monthly monitoring of expenditures led to excessive entanglement.
When the same parties returned in 1997, the Court recognized that the case law had evolved. The special ed classes were being offered in mobile classrooms separate from the parochial schools, the same type of aid was offered to public schools, and the monitoring was deemed less onerous. Although the balancing test in Lemon was left intact, the "entanglement" prong was sharply weakened.
Agostini v. Felton, 1997.
39. VOUCHERS OKAY FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS: The Supreme Court upheld an Ohio program which gave vouchers to low-income parents to help their children to attend secular or sectarian private schools.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002.
40. NEUTRAL FEDERAL LOANS TO SCHOOLS OF BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT: The Supreme Court upheld a federal program to provide loans on a neutral basis for books and educational equipment to parochial and public schools.
Mitchell v. Helms, 2000.
9. ESTABLISHMENT CASES RELATING TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
41. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS: The Supreme Court struck down an Illinois plan where students could choose between an hour of religious or secular education in public schools. The ZCourt held that non-religious students could feel ostracized.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 1948.
42. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS: The Supreme Court upheld a New York plan where public students were given "release time" for religious instruction off public school grounds.
Zorach v. Clauson, 1952.
43. GOVERNMENT-COMPOSED PRAYER: The Supreme Court struck down a prayer for school students to a non-denominational God to protect students, teachers, schools and parents.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962.
44. BIBLE-READING AND PRAYER IN SCHOOLS: The Supreme Court struck down a Pennsylvania requirement that a bible reading be in each school day and a Maryland law that allowed Bible reading or the Lord's Prayer be in each school day. The Court held that these laws violated both the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" prongs of the balancing test.
Abington v. Schemp, 1963.
45. BARRING TEACHING OF EVOLUTION: The Supreme Court struck down an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools because it had the effect of advancing some religions' beliefs, and thus violated the "secular purpose" prong of the balancing test.
Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 1985.
47. NO LINK TO CREATIONISM ALLOWED BEFORE TEACHING EVOLUTION: The Supreme Court struck down an Alabama law that required schools to also teach creationism if they taught evolution,
Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987.
48. FEDERAL SEX COUNSELLLING FOR TEENS OFF CAMPUS: The Supreme Court held that a federal grant program was facially neutral when it offered grants to groups to provide counselling, educational and referral services to teens on sexual activity, teen pregnancy, family planning, and abortion, even though applications for funds required groups to describe how they would involve religious organizations in providing services. The Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration of entanglement issues.
Bowen v. Kendrick, 1988.
49. RELIGIOUS CLUBS MAY MEET IN NON-INSTRUCTIONAL PERIODS: The Supreme Court reversed the denial of equal access to meeting rooms for a religious club at a public high school when similar access was granted to secular groups.
Board of Education v. Mergens, 1990.
50. NO PRAYERS AT PUBLIC SCHOOL GRADUATIONS: The Supreme Court struck down a Providence practice of inviting clergy to give non-denominational invocations and benedictions at public school graduations. It held the ceremonies were mandatory, the prayers advanced religion, and the guidance to clergy on prayer conent was an entanglement.
Lee v. Weisman, 1992.
51. ACCESS TO SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR CHURCH DECIDED ON FREE SPEECH: The Supreme Court reversed a public school decision to deny access to a school facility during non-school hours to show a religious film, even though the school granted such access to secular groups. The decision was based on Free Speech grounds rather than on the religious clauses of the First Amendment.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School, 1993.
52. NO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT JUST FOR HANDICAPPED JEWISH CHILDREN: The Supreme Court struck down the creation of a school district just to operate a special school for the handicapped children of a Hasidic Jewish village where the other children attended the public schools in an adjoining school district.
Board of Education of Kivas Joel v. Grumet, 1994.
53. NO STUDENT-LED PRAYER AT FOOTBALL GAMES: The Supreme Court barred a school district from permitting athletes to lead a voluntary prayer at high school football games on "Establishment Clause" grounds.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 2000.
54. OPEN FORUM FOR CLUB AT HIGH SCHOOL: The Supreme Court held that a New York high school could not deny access or place prior restraints on the speech at meetings of a religious club when it did not place similar restrictions on the open forum by secular groups.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 2001.
10. ARE THERE LOOSER STANDARDS FOR COLLEGES?
55. COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS: The Supreme Court upheld a federal program to construct facilities at both secular and sectarian colleges because it benefited all colleges, the facilities were not allowed to be used for sectarian purposes, the purpose and effect was not to establish a religion, and college students were less susceptible to recruitment than schoolchildren. The Court did separate and strike down a provision that allowed facilities to be converted to sectarian uses after 20 years because of entanglement issues.
The chapel at the Georgetown university Law Center is in the basement of the school because it is considered a separate building with a brick exterior while the larger building has concrete walls.
Tilton v. Richardson, 1971.
56. COLLEGE FACILITY BONDS: The Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina bond loan program to fund college facilities because: the funds were available to all colleges; the funded facilities could not be used for sectarian purposes; and would not cause excessive entanglement if the state had to foreclose on the property if the college did not repay the loan.
Hunt v. McNair, 1973.
57. FUNDS TO COLLEGES OTHER THAN SEMINARIES: The Supreme Court upheld a Maryland program to provide direct funds to colleges other than seminaries. The court held that the minimal state review of affidavits from sectarian colleges that they were not using state funds for religious purposes did not constitute excessive entanglement.
In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted: "We are asked once again to police the boundary between church and state."
Roemer v. Maryland Public Works, 1976.
58. ACCESS TO COLLEGE FACILITIES FOR RELIGIOUS GROUPS: The Supreme Court reversed a University of Missouri decision to deny equal access to a meeting room for a student religious group.
Widmar v. Vincent, 1981.
59. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT RELIGIOUS COLLEGES: The Supreme Court held that the Internal Revenue Service could revoke the tax-exemp status of a religious college if its policies fostered racial discrimination because the Constitutional imperatives of the post-Civil War amendments outweighed the tax impact on the Free Exercise protections of religious institutions.
Bob Jones University v. United States, 1983.
60. COLLEGE TUITION FOR BLIND SEMINARIAN: Washington state denied "neutrally available" college tuition to a blind student who wanted to attend a seminary. The state supreme court held that this tuition would advance religion. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the "neutrally available" aid did not advance religion, but it remanded the case for the state court to determine if the aid would be impermissible entanglement.
Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for the Blind, 1986.
61. EQUAL ACCESS FOR A COLLEGE NEWSPAPER: The Supreme Court reversed the denial of student group funds for a recognized student religious group at the University of Virginia to publish a sectarian newspaper when those funds were also available to recognized secular student groups.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 1995.
62. STATES MAY DENY THEOLOGY SCHOLARSHIPS AT SEMINARIES: The Supreme Court upheld a Washington scholarship program that denied aid to students pursuing theology degrees at seminaries.
Locke v. Davey, 2004.
11. ARE THERE LOOSER STANDARDS FOR OTHER INSTITUTIONS?
63. NUNS RUNNING A SECULAR HOSPITAL: The Supreme Court held that Congress could charter and fund a hospital that was later run by Catholic sisters because it was a secular corporation with a secular purpose, regardless of who operated the hospital.
Bradfield v. Roberts, 1899.
64. PRISONS MUST ACCOMMODATE RELIGIOUS PRISONERS: The Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that required jails and prisons that accept federal funds to make accommodations for the religious practices of prisoners. It struck down practices in Ohio prisons.
Cutter v. Wilkinson, 2005.
65. MILITARY UNIFORMS: A devout Jew protested that he should be allowed to wear a yarmulke as part of his military uniform. The Supreme Court denied this claim because the government had an overriding interest in making sure that its military uniforms were indeed uniform.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 1986.
12. BEWARE ZEALOTRY ON THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
Life magazine called Madalyn Murray O'Hair as "the most hated woman in America. As the leader of a group called American Atheists, she used the Establishment Clause as a cudgel to attack the status quo through the courts from 1963 until her murder in 1995.
As an atheist, she sued Maryland for requiring Bible-readings and prayer in the public schools in OHair v. Curlett. At the same time, Universalist Edward Schempp sued Pennsylvania on the same theory. Because there were more declared Universalists in America than declared atheists in 1963, the courts combined the cases under Abington v. Schempp.
Over the years, O'Hair brought lawsuits across the country to attack what she saw as unconstitutional acts to establish religion.
In 1964, she sued to force the Federal Communications Commission to expand the Fairness Doctrine that gave equal broadcast time to political opponents to now give equal time to atheists to balance religious programming ad comments.
In 1970, she sued to block weekly prayer groups meeting in the White House.
In 1971, she sued astronauts as federal employees because they read aloud from Genesis as they rounded the moon on Apollo 8.
In 1977, she sued to challenge the opening prayer at city council meetings in Austin, Texas.
In 1978, she renewed a debate by challenging the use of "In God We Trust" on U.S. coinage and currency.
In 1978, she sued to remove a provision of the Texas Constitution that required persons holding an office of public trust to hold a personal belief in God.
In 1979, she sued the National Park Service when it allowed the Pope to hold a prayer service on the National Mall in Washington.
In 1980, she sued to remove the Nativity scene from the Rotunda of the Texas State Capitol in Austin.
From 1984 to 1987, she sued repeatedly to have the unordained minister serving at a county hospital in Des Moines, Iowa.
For the next eight years, O'Hair and her son wrote newsletters and raised funds from the American Atheist headquarters in Austin, Texas. She also was a speechwriter for the presidential campaign of Hustler pornographer Larry Flynt.
At her headquarters. O'Hair hired an ex-con who had been convicted of murder, She also took the volunteer work of two other ex-convicts who had been convicted of murder and other violent crimes.
The three men kidnapped O'Hair, her son, and her granddaughter in 1995. To get her to turn over more than $500,000 in gold coins, they tortured the three hostages. The convicts cut off the hostages legs. Two of them killed the third man and buried the four bodies on a remote ranch. One pf the men eventually guided police to the grave in 2001.
.
Comments
Post a Comment