Magruder’s American Government
1st Edition
ISBN: 9780133306996
Textbook solutions
All Solutions
Section 8-2: Freedom of Religion
Exercise 1
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 3
During the colonial period, governments were very closely associated with the official church. After the formation of the United States, the principle was adopted that the state and the church should be separated, which means that the state should be neutral in relation to all religions. This principle is expressed in the 1st Amendment in two clauses:
**1. Establishment Clause**
**2. Free Exercise Clause**
Step 2
2 of 3
**The Establishment Clause** implies that governments will not establish or support any religion and that there is no official religion in the United States.
Step 3
3 of 3
**The Free Exercise Clause** implies that all individuals are free to practice whatever religion they want and that the governments will not bring laws that limit the stated rights of individuals.
Step 1
1 of 2
The **meaning of the phrase ”separation from church and state”** means that citizens can publicly live their life with a choice of their fate, as the government will not use any force to persuade or change their view of religion or worship. This phrase presents freedom of religion for every citizen. The theory is based on people having the right to religion and fate, and they do not owe that to anyone but themself. The phrase “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” makes a wall between the church and government.
Step 2
2 of 2
The **First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution** says that: “ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibition the free exercise thereof…” . Jefferson rephrased the principle from the Constitution into the separation of Church and State.
Exercise 2
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 5
The **Constitution guarantees religious freedom to its citizens**. It is stated in the **First Amendment**: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Step 2
2 of 5
With this stated government provides two protections. One is the right to religious belief, and the second is that the government will not favor faiths over others and religion over non-religion.
Step 3
3 of 5
The **Establishment Clause** prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion or interfere in matters of religion.
Step 4
4 of 5
The **Free Exercise Clause** states that the legislative body can make no law supporting religion or prohibiting it.
Step 5
5 of 5
Both clauses support freedom of religion as a personal choice, as the government will favor none or make laws for or against the matters of church.
Step 1
1 of 4
The United States is a secular country, which means that there is no state religion and that the government and the church are independent institutions.
Step 2
2 of 4
The separation of state and church was proclaimed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which contains two very important clauses:
**1. Establishment Clause**
**2. Free Exercise Clause**
Step 3
3 of 4
Both of these clauses concern the concept of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause places restrictions on the government’s on establishing a state religion or favoring an individual religion. The Free Exercise Clause refers to the right of an individual to practice chosen religion without hindrance by the state.
Result
4 of 4
To summarize, the Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of a state religion, the favoring of any religion, and the interference of the government in church matters. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the state from imposing restrictions on individuals regarding the choice and exercise of religion. The right to freedom of religion is not guaranteed if its exercise leads to the collapse of public morals or is contrary to the important interests of the government.
Exercise 3
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 4
**The Lemon test** is a mechanism that courts use to determine if a law violates the Establishment clause that is part of the 1st Amendment. If it is proven that the law does not respect the stated clause, it means that it is unconstitutional and therefore legally null and void.
Step 2
2 of 4
This test was established by the Supreme Court in 1971, during the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman concerning one Pennsylvania law. This law meant that the state provided funds for private schools to cover the costs of teaching, and what is disputable is that those schools were mostly church schools. Certain taxpayers then challenged the law, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause. After the initial instances, the case reached the Supreme Court, which declared the law unconstitutional.
Step 3
3 of 4
To facilitate further cases with a similar subject, the Court established a three-part doctrine known as the Lemon test. According to this test, in order to determine whether a law complies with the Establishment Clause, it is necessary to establish three standards:
**1. The reasons for the adoption of the law must be secular, not religious in nature**
**2. Law must neither promote nor restrict any religion**
**3. The law must not lead to an excessive connection between government and religion**
Result
4 of 4
The Supreme Court found that if a law violates any of the three stated standards it means that it violates the Establishment Clause which leads to the declaration of its unconstitutionality and its annulment.
Step 1
1 of 4
To further protect religious freedom, the Supreme Court uses three standards that are questioned in the **Lemon test**. It is a tool from the Supreme Court that helps to preserve freedom of religion.
Step 2
2 of 4
The Lemon test helps the government determine whether political activities or law violates the establishment clause from the First Amendment.
Step 3
3 of 4
All **three points** have to be negative from the subject’s behalf to pass the Lemon test. Those are:
*1)* Does a subject have a secular purpose of non-religious nature.
*2)* The subject does not advance or inhibit religion.
*3)* The subject does not promote involvement with religion on the government’s behalf.
*1)* Does a subject have a secular purpose of non-religious nature.
*2)* The subject does not advance or inhibit religion.
*3)* The subject does not promote involvement with religion on the government’s behalf.
Step 4
4 of 4
The **case Lemon v. Kurtzman from 1971** encouraged the Supreme Court to establish three prong test that will help determine whether governments actions are interfering with religion in any way. The government will favor none or make laws for or against church matters.
Exercise 4
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 4
The United States is a secular country, which means that the issues of government and the church are separate. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution contains an Establishment Clause according to which the government should not in any way interfere in the establishment of a church or the propagation of a particular religion.
Step 2
2 of 4
Since the mentioned clause was proclaimed in the 1st Amendment, the Supreme Court has had several cases in which it determined whether it was violated or not. Some of these cases concerned State aid to parochial schools. These cases have also led to a wide public discussion on these issues.
Step 3
3 of 4
Supporters of the State’s right to financially help parochial schools state several arguments. First, there is a financial argument – they believe that if these schools, due to lack of funds, would have to reduce the number of students, those students would have to be enrolled in schools at public expense. In this regard, State aid to these schools would be fair to parents of students who go to parochial schools rather than public ones, as they are certainly required to pay taxes to fund public education. There is also an argument regarding the content of teaching in parochial schools – it mostly consists of non-religious subjects.
Step 4
4 of 4
On the other hand, opponents of State aid to parochial schools challenge the financial argument by the fact that parents who decided to have their children attend these schools, rather than public ones, consciously and voluntarily decided not to use the benefits of free public education. Also, they believe that in parochial schools, secular subjects are studied under the influence of religion, and that in such an environment, it is impossible to eliminate the effect of religion from specific parts of the educational process.
Step 1
1 of 3
The **U.S., following the Constitution, separates religious from political issues**. Per the 1st Amendment, the government will not interfere in matters connected with religion or support it in any way.
Step 2
2 of 3
The controversies around government aid to parochial schools arise because parochial schools are religious schools. Even though most of their subjects are nonreligious, the government funding these schools would violate the Lemon rule. Plus, parents should know that it is an additional financial cost when sending their kids to religious schools.
Step 3
3 of 3
However, the Supreme Court has determined that some arrangements of government aid do not break the establishment clause. Bus transport and nonreligious books are considered not to be violating the 1st Amendment.
Exercise 5
Solution 1
Solution 2
Step 1
1 of 2
Jehovah’s Witnesses have repeatedly challenged the constitutionality of certain laws before the Supreme Court. The constitutionality of the law has often been questioned regarding the possible violation of the Free Excercise clause by the State.
Step 2
2 of 2
One case concerned the refusal of members of Jehovah’s Witnesses to salute the flag. Jehovah’s Witnesses considered it a form of idolatry that the Bible opposed.In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that this law was unconstitutional. The court opinion given with this verdict did not take a favorable position on the development of patriotism through orders and obligatory actions.
Step 1
1 of 2
**Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to salute any national flag** and sing the national anthem as they believe their fate belongs to God’s Kingdom that they make their government. Everything else is not seen as a religious act of true worship. Furthermore, the religion does not pledge to any object, national anthem, or national flag.
Step 2
2 of 2
The **Supreme Court** in **1940** ruled that Jehovah’s witnesses should salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite students refusing to do such practices they saw as religion one’s. Three years later, the **Supreme Court overruled** this decision because they found it breaks the principles of the 1st Amendment. The free Speech Clause protects everyone; in this case, it was Jehovah’s students to be obliged to salute the flag and recite the pledge.
unlock