CONSTITUTION - Establishment Clause & Religion

In 1947 there was a SCOTUS case, Everson v. Bd of Ed. It was about reimbursing parents who paid for transportation for their to kids attend private Religions K-12 schools.

It's importance was (1) it legally defined the Establishment Clause for the first time.(2) It applied the Establishment Clause to the states. (3) It created the child benefit theory which modern day conservative justices developed into the rationale for allowing tax money to be used to for faith based crap and the SCOTUS Cleveland Voucher case they claimed wasn't unconstitutional.

In Everson all nine justices agreed on the meaning of the Establishment Clause:

The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'

I, for one, believe in the opinion of these justices.

This is why I do not agree with what is happening in some states, one example being the Gay Marriage issue. Anti-gay marriage laws are supporting a belief of specific religions; and local, state, nor federal government should NOT be allowed to do that.

"Introduction to the Establishment Clause"

Excerpt

Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two. For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops. We will, however, postpone discussion of how the two clauses ought to be reconciled, and begin with an examination of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.

At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state.

AND: "Walz v. Tax Commission" by Dr. Bill Long, PhD, JD

Excerpt

The facts of the case are neither significant nor complicated. An owner of New York real estate sought an injunction to prevent the NY Tax Commission from granting statutorily permitted tax exemptions for property used solely for religious purposes. This case was the occasion, however, for extensive articulation of the way that historical practices impinge upon the Court's decisions in Establishment Clause cases. First, however, the Court repeated principles of Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

After confessing that the religion clauses of the First Amendment are not "the most precisely drawn" clauses, and that the Court has struggled to find a "neutral course" between the two clauses, the Chief Justice said that there was room for "play in the joints productive of a benevolent neutrality" between church and state. This metaphoric liberty then characterized the rest of the Chief Justice's opinion. He didn't want to construe the Clause "with a literalness" that would undermine the constitutional objective as illuminated by history; indeed the metaphor he landed on, entanglement, has served the Court well since 1970.

So there is a push-pull in interpretation Establishment Clause vs the Free Exercise Clause, which is the bases for conflicting views on religion and government.

Also note that the Everson v. Bd of Ed. case is where the idea of "a wall of separation" came from.

I say, error on the side of KEEPING government out of religion.