First+Amendment+-+Freedom+of+Religion

=__**1st Amendment - Freedom of Religion:**__** (By: Dorothy Ha & Marlene Imana-Iyemura) **=

Describe the two separate "clauses" in the 1st Amendment and "wall of separation":
__**-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:**__ prevent government from establishing a national religion; prevents government from putting one religion over another or religion over secular __**- FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE:**__ reserves an American the right to exercise and practice any religion; they choose without being discriminated against **"wall of separation"** : idea of dissociation of the government and the Church; asserts that the government cannot interfere with Church affairs and the Church cannot interfere with government affairs. - The “wall of separation” is not in the Constitution. While the “wall of separation” is not directly stated in the Constitution, it is in the spirit of the First Amendment. The concept is credited to Thomas Jefferson and his writings.

__**Court Cases**__

 * ===Include a summary of the facts of the case (who was suing who and why) ===
 * ===the court's decision and reasoning used (include any dissenting opinions) ===
 * ===the impact the decision had on individuals' civil rights and liberties ===

//Aguilar v Felton-//
Summary: Court's decision and reasoning: Impact of decision:
 * Government authorized local institutions to receive funds to assist educationally deprived children from low-income families
 * Funds granted by Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
 * Since 1966 New York City used portions of Title 1 funding to pay salaries of teachers at parochial schools (Church parish schools)
 * 5 votes for Felton and 4 votes against
 * Court voted against New York City’s spending on parochial schools New York’s program directed teachers to AVOID religious materials and activities in the classroom
 * Sided with Felton because the Establishment Clause’s intent is to prevent the infringement of the Government in Church/religion and vice versa
 * Schools that are religiously affiliated cannot receive government funding

//Engel v Vitale (1961)//
Summary: Court's decision and reasoning: Impact of decision:
 * Board of Regents for the State of New York allowed at the beginning of the school day that students can recite short, voluntary prayer:
 * “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.”
 * 6 votes for Engel, 1 vote against
 * “nondenominational prayer at the start day” violated the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment
 * Court decided this b/c even though the prayer was optional, the fact that they added the prayer implies that New York officially approved religion
 * eliminated religious activities of all sorts in public places/ceremonies

//Everson v Board of Education (1946)//
Summary: Court's decision and reasoning: Impact of decision:
 * Law in New Jersey that said that parents who sent their children to school through public transportation system (buses) can get reimbursements of money
 * issue b/c children who go to Catholic schools also qualified for this
 * divided Court on decision
 * New Jersey law did not violate the Constitution
 * law didn’t pay money nor support parochial schools in any way
 * objective: assist parents of all religions to get their children to school.
 * Supreme Court Justice Black argued that public services such as bus, police, and fire protection for parochial schools are separate so the state can provide them of these services (meaning that the state will not be in violation of the First Amendment for providing these services to parochial schools)
 * States can establish transportation, police, and fire stations for parochial schools without fear of violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Constiution

**//Lemon v Kurtzman -//**
Summary:

<span style="color: #008080; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Court's decision and reasoning: <span style="color: #008080; font-family: Tahoma,Geneva,sans-serif;">Impact of decision:
 * Heard concurrently with two other cases: Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971)
 * Controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island
 * Pennsylvania → statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools
 * Rhode Island → statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools
 * Conflict over whether or not the Pennsylvania statute and Rhode Island statute violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause
 * Both statutes provided aid to “church-related educational institutions”
 * 8 votes for Lemon, 0 votes against
 * Chief Justice Burger wrote for the majority decision
 * Established that in order to be constitutional, a statute must have:
 * “a secular legislative purpose”
 * principal effects which NEITHER advance nor inhibit religion
 * must NOT foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion”
 * By subsidizing parochial schools, these two states’ statutes arguably furthered a process of religious instruction (and indoctrination)
 * The court decision ruling against the two states’ statutes that provided subsidies to religious schools emphasized the separation of Church and state.
 * By not allowing states to give government funds to church-related schools, the Supreme Court highlighted the idea that supporting schools associated with religion would lead to issues with “government entanglement with religion”.