Freedom of religion

Freedom of Religion

  • Freedom of Religion ( Found in the Consititution Bill of Rights First Ammendment)

    Freedom of Religion ( Found in the Consititution Bill of Rights First Ammendment)
    Since the beginning of the creation of the earth, man kind has been trying to come up with explainations for how it all began. Because of the different theories, wars have begun, people have been killed, and lives have changed. In the American government, the first ammendment guarentees the rights of religious freedom and all it entails. At the start of this nation, the ammendement was used to protect poeple's religous beliefs but recently it has been interpreted to protect people FROM beliefs.
  • Establishment Clause and the Freedom Of Religion Clause

    The establishment clause basically prohibits the national government from creating a national religion and keeps the government from choosing one religion over another.
    The freedom of religion clause allows people to practice their religion in peace as long as it does not disrupt the public.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut (facts of case)

    In this case, Cantwell and his son were found guilty of voilating the "breach of peace" by going door to door with books and pamphlets in a prodominitly roman catholic neighborhood. Along with pamphlets, they played an offensive song attacking the caltholic religion. They claimed the conviction violated their right to free speech but the case also involved freedom of religous expression as well.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut (Decision of Case)

    The court found that Cantwells case was protected under both the fourteenth and first ammendment. The previous ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court was overturned and found that the statute requiring a liscense for religous purposes was illegal under excessive power of the state. Also, in the first conviction the Cantwell's were arrested with breach of peace but the court found they were not posing a threat to the public by expressing their religous freedom.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut (Signifigance and Impact on Public Policy)

    The decision of the case made it illegal for states to impose "special requirements", such as permits, on things involving religon. Also, sharing unfriendly information to a certain group is not neccisarily posing a threat on the public. The decision set the precedent for states on law making involving religion and also help solidify the implimention of incorporation of religous freedom in all states not to mention maintaining the supremecy clause.
  • Cox v. New Hampshire (Facts of Case)

    In this case, a number of Jehovas witnesses were arrested for having a parade in the streets without a permit. They walked along the sidewalks with leaflets, posters, and announcements of a meeting later that night. They believed it was legal under their 14 ammendment right to freedom of worship and assembly.
  • Cox v. New Hampshire (Ruling)

    The court upheld their conviction because the states have the power to regulate public space, which they were using. Also, in order to maintain saftey on the streets, the states should have known about the parade before hand to prevent any breach of peace.
  • Cox v. New Hampshire (Signifigance and Impact)

    The case gave more rights to states by allowing them to impose permits for public property under relgious circumstances. The liscense is for public benifit and is constitutional.
  • Murdock v. Pennsylvania (facts of case)

    Under Pennsylvania law, solicitors were required to purchase a liscense from the borough. So when Murdock wanted to exchange books and pamphlets for contributions the city claimed she needed a permit. This case decided whether or not cities could tax religous exercise.
  • Murdock v. Pennsylvania (Ruling)

    The court decided that instating a tax on relgious items was illegal because it violated the right freedom of religous expression under the first ammendment. They also stated, that if the act had been done to make money then it would be considered commerical and taxable. One can be taxed for the income of their preaching, not the preaching itself.
  • Murdock v. Pennsylvania (Signifigance and Impact)

    In this case, the difference between commerical activity and religous activity was distinguished which sets a precedent to all other states. Again, the supremecy clause is practiced over the states laws.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts (Singnifigance and Impact)

    After this case, location started to become a factor in religous practices. Because the family was practing of public property it was within the states jurisdiction to uphold the child labor laws set in place. This put a restriction on freedom to practice ones religion.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts (Facts of Case)

    In this case, a Jehovas witness was arrested for violating a number of child labor laws by allowing her nine year old daughter to sell religous magazines to the public. The mother claims it was within her nineteenth ammendment right to exercise her religion freely.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts (Ruling)

    After reviewing the case, the supreme court ruled in favor the case saying the states had the power to oversee the child laws in order to ensure their safety. The law did not restrict the family's well being in this situation because they were on public property.
  • Everson v. Board of Education (Facts of case)

    In this case, Everson (tax payer) filed suit on the board of education for reimbursment funds for parents of parochial school students of children going to and from school. The case involved challenging whether or not children of parochial schools could have the same benifits of those at public schools even though the parents of the parochial schools paid taxes. After having the court of appeals affirmed the rule that the statute did not violate law, the supreme court decidet to rule as well.
  • Everson v. Board of Education (Ruling)

    The supreme court ruled that the statute of "nuetral law" was constitutional because it benifited all parents of school children. The ruling did not have to involve religion because it was simply a matter of transportation for tax payers children. The board would not in fact be funding parochial activities only reimbursment for transportation.
  • Everson v. Board of Education (Signifigance and Impact)

    In the case, the Supreme Court helped solitify the difference between religous involment and tax payer assistance. It set a precedent for the state that as long as the board is not engaging in religous affilations they can in fact provide help to parents and schools of religous affilation such as this case.
  • Engel v. Vitale (Facts of Case)

    In this particular case, students in schools were asked to recite a nondemoninational prayer everyday in New York. Parents filed suit seeking a ban on the prayer but the state appeals court belived the prayer was okay as long as the school was not compeling the students to say it against the parents wishes. It was then brought to the supreme court to decide whether or not the prayer violated the establishment clause of the first ammendment.
  • Engel v. Vitale (Court Decision)

    In this case, the court had to consider many factors including whether or not religous freedom was violated by saying the prayer, whether the prayer itself was legal, and whether or not the establishment clause can prevent students schools from engaging in religous activities. The supreme court ruled that the prayer was in fact unconstitutional.
  • Engel v. Vitale (Signifigance and Impact)

    In this case, the establishment clause was explained further and a precdent was set for all other states involving prayers in school. Courts in later years have ruled based on this particular case which is an implimation of total incorporation. Also, law makers know now to not create laws such as this one allowing schools to create prayers.
  • Lemon v. Kurzman (Facts of Case)

    In this case, patriochal schools were being reimbursed for expenses assiocated with education of children. The Pennsylvania law makers passed a law allowing state governments to pay the salaries of private schools teachers as long as they taught secular classes only, instructional materials, and textbooks.
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman (Ruling)

    In this case, the court ruled that states can not provide materials and such to private schools bceause it was excessive entanglement of religion and government. The framers original intent was for the seperation of church and state by not instating a national religion and religous affilations.
  • Lemon v. Kurtzman (Signifigance and Impact)

    Due to the ruling that private schools can not have state government funding, a precedent was set . Also, the establishment clause was once again brought into question and reestablished a clear understanding of its guidlines. Finally, the case also created the Lemon Test which details the requirements for legislation involving religion.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder (Facts of Case)

    Under Wisconsin law, children were required to be enrolled in school until the age of sixteen. Therefore, when an Amish family chose to take their students out before eighth grade, they were convicted. The family sued them in return clamining their right to free exercise of relgion was being violated. The Wisconsin supreme court ruled in favor of the family. The supreme court then intertrupted whether or not the law was constitutional.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder (Ruling)

    The supreme court upheld the conviction of the Wisconsin Supreme Court saying that their right to religous freedom was violated. There was a legitamite reason for taking their children out of school because it was a definite violation of their religion. It was an acceptable reason and therefore allowed.
  • Wisconsin v. Yoder (Signifigence and Impact)

    By ruling in favor of the family, the court set a precedent to all states that they cannot set law creating an absolute higher education requirement. This also gave the public the precedent to practice their religions in spite of educational requirements.
  • Employment Division v. Smith (Ruling)

    In this case, the supreme court stated that Oregon could not prohibit religous use of a drug because it was allowed under the free exercise clause in the constitution. In this clause, anyone is allowed to believe in whatever religion they choose and also the performance it requires. In the case, because the drug did not harm the public or other laws, it could be used for religous purposes.
  • Employement Division v. Smith (Facts of Case)

    In the case, Smith and his co worker Blackwell were fired from their jobs for using a drug from work for religous purposes at a cerermony at their native american chruch. When they applied for unepmployment benifits they were turned down because they had been fired for work related mis conduct. The court originally ruled that using the drug for any purpose was illegal but the case was brought to the supreme court because the state had made it illegal to use to drug for religous purposes only.
  • Employment Division v. Smith (Signifigance and Impact)

    The case showed that the belief in religous freedom is more important than that of state laws which thus exmplifyes the supremecy clause. Also, it has set the precedent for other cases involving religous practice and such.
  • Mitchell v. Helms (Facts of Case)

    In this case, private and public schools were provided non idealogical materials under the Education and Consolidation Act of 1981. In Lousiana, around 30 % of the funds were given to religously affilated private schools and were therefore sued by taxpayers. They believed the establishment clause was violated because the school was religously affilated.
  • Mitchell v. Helms (ruling)

    The court said it was legal for relgiously affilated schools to recieve the loans because they funds were being used for non idealogical materials. In the particular case, the government was not aiding or involving themselves in the religous activity and therefore it was constitutional.
  • Mitchell v. Helms (Signifigance and Impact)

    Government aid can be provided to private schools if the materials are not related to religon. It did not violate the establishment clause. This ruling overruled the previous Meek v Pittenger case.
  • Political Cartoon One

    Political Cartoon One
    In this cartoon, the seperation of church and state is being violated. The artist brings up concerns of birth control and abortion as being based off of religion and how it has affected the government. The government allows free practice of religion thriough the free exercise clause yet hospitals cannot be forced into giving abortions. Now, if the hospital said it allowed abortion and such but did not actually provide it then the government could step in for false advertising.
  • Political Cartoon Two

    Political Cartoon Two
    In this cartoon, the auther is illustrating how our country has moved from the belief of freedom of religion to freedom from religion. The way the public is exercising their rights is against that of what was intended in the religious freedom clause. This clause allows people to establish their religion freely but recently it has been interpruted to take away from all religions for others benifit. A way so they don't, disrupt the peace one might say.