1 / 27

Engle v. Vitale – 1962

Engle v. Vitale – 1962. Religious Freedom Enough of this Freedom of Religion Crap - YouTube. Is religion more unifying or divisive in American society?. Separation of Church & State. “ a wall of separation between church and state. ” – TJ What does this mean?. 1) Solid Wall of Separation.

raja
Télécharger la présentation

Engle v. Vitale – 1962

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Engle v. Vitale – 1962

  2. Religious FreedomEnough of this Freedom of Religion Crap - YouTube

  3. Is religion more unifying or divisive in American society?

  4. Separation of Church & State • “a wall of separation between church and state.” – TJ • What does this mean?

  5. 1) Solid Wall of Separation • Prohibits all forms of public aid for or support of religion

  6. 2) The “wall” forbids the favoring by the state of one religion over another…not nondiscriminatory support/aid for all religions

  7. 3) The “wall” only prohibits the establishment of a national religion

  8. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Is this establishment of religion? What is the reasoningbehind your decision? Pennsylvania law that authorized Kurtzman (superintendent) to purchase secular educational services from nonpublic schools. Kurtzman would use state levied taxes to reimburse nonpublic schools for expenses incurred for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials Secular purposes only

  9. Establishment Clause: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” • Lemon Test: • 1) Purpose • 2) Promotion • 3) Excessive entanglement ($)

  10. Your assignment...--you are assigned to one of five groups of cases regarding establishment of religion--w/ your groupa. read about each caseb. discuss w/ your groupc. apply the Lemon Testd. predict how the SC will decide e. present each case to the class and poll the class regarding their opinion

  11. Establishment Clause: Cases • Group #1: Aid to religious schools • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) • Everson v. Board of Education (1947) • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

  12. Establishment Clause: Cases • Group #2—Public School facilities and funds • Widmar v. Vincent (1981) • Rosenberger v. U. of Virginia (1995)

  13. Establishment Clause: Cases • Group #3—Religion in public schools • Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) • Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

  14. Establishment Clause: Cases • Group #4—Holiday Displays • Lynch v. Donelly (1984) • County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) • Jon Stewart--The War on Christmas

  15. Establishment Clause: Cases • Group #5—Prayer in public schools • Engle v. Vitale (1962) • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963) • Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) • Santa Fe School District v. Doe

  16. Free Exercise Clause: “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

  17. Mass. V. David & Ginger Twitchell (1990)

  18. Case #1: WV State Board of Ed v. Barnette (1943)

  19. Case #2: Welsh v. United States (1970)

  20. Case #3: State of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

  21. Case #4: Oregon Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

  22. Case #5: Church of LukumiBabalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)

  23. Standards: How does the court decide/what criteria do they use? • Courts have been inconsistent in their rulings… • Sherbert-Yoder Test=less restrictive on free exercise • Smith Test=more restrictive on free exercise

  24. 1) Legitimacy

  25. 2) Balance: state must demonstrate a ‘compelling governmental interest’

  26. 3) Compromise – “least restrictive means”

  27. 4) Targeting – no “ex post facto” laws targeting religious practices

More Related