Understanding religious liberty and religious freedom in America requires understanding the varying and often contradictory court decisions which have been made in this area. Here you will find an index of summaries and expalantions of major Supreme Court decisions dealing with religion and religious freedom.
Should the government give special rights to religious believers and religious institutions which no atheist or secular institution can have access to? That's what the Congress did with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Far from restoring religious freedom, it created special rights and privileges based on religion, allowing religious institutions to ignore neutral civil laws. The Supreme Court struck down the RFRA in Boerne v. Flores, reinforcing the principle of equality for all.
Employers find it easy to accommodate the religious practices of majority faiths, but the different practices of minority faiths require extra thought. Apparently, it's too much thought and effort for some employers because the same accommodations given to adherents of mainstream Christian churches are sometimes denied outright to even minority Christian churches, never mind non-Christians. The Supreme Court ruled in Sherbert v. Verner that adherents of minority faiths cannot be disadvantaged.
Should religious groups be able to ignore generally applicable laws? If religious believers think that they have religious reasons for some activity that is otherwise illegal, should they be allowed to do it freely while others are prosecuted and jailed for the same activity? That was the question raised in Oregon v. Smith, where adherents of a Native American religious group argued they should be allowed to use peyote in religious services while everyone else is banned from using peyote.
Court houses and public parks all around the nation have had Ten Commandments monuments of one sort or another erected in them. Many Ten Commandments monuments were erected by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in the 1950s and 60s. One six foot tall monument was placed on the Texas state Capitol grounds in 1961. According to the legislative resolution accepting the gift, the purpose of the monument was to 'recognize and commend a private organization for its efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency.'
Many Ten Commandments monuments in America are decades old, but various local governments put up new displays as well. McCreary County, Kentucky, put up a Ten Commandments display in the county court house. After it was challenged, the county added several more documents referencing religion and God. In 2000, this display was declared unconstitutional. The court noted that the County selected only documents or portions of documents expressing favoritism towards certain religious ideas...
Are the Ten Commandments secular enough to warrant posting in all public school classes, or are they so religious that such postings would amount to a government endorsement of religion aimed at impressionable children? Does the fact that the government says their purpose is secular suffice to regard the actions as actually secular?
Can a school refuse to publish or post a paid religious message if it allows other paid messages and advertisements? Can the school refuse to publish or post any paid messages at all in order to avoid having to include religious messages?
Are the Ten Commandments a secular or a religious document? Just how far can a government go in displaying the Ten Commandments? Can large, expensive monuments to the Ten Commandments be erected on public property by arguing that they played a role in the development of secular laws and, hence, that the monument itself is secular?
Is a massive monument displaying the Ten Commandments constitutional and secular when it includes other legal documents from history - like the Bill of Rights? To what extent does the religious nature and significance of the Ten Commandments override the secular aspects of other near-by displays?
Can a government official erect a massive monument to the Ten Commandments in a government building by asserting that they have a secular rather than a religious purpose? What if that official has a long history of supporting displays of the Ten Commandments for religious reasons?
Summary and analysis of Wisconsin v. Yoder: Should all children be required to attend public schools, even if the parents have religious objections to what is being taught or schooling in general beyond a certain point? Amish and Mennonite Christians, for example, don’t believe in formal schooling after a certain age - and the Supreme Court ruled that their objections were valid.
Engel vs. Vitale: What authority, if any, does the government have when it comes religious rituals like prayers? Can a government write specific prayers for public school students to recite every day? That used to be the case in many places in America, but that was challenged and ultimately struck down by the Supreme Court.
Newdow v. U.S. Congress: The Pledge of Allegiance has been recited by tens of millions of school children over the years and is familiar to most Americans - but was the 1950s addition of the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state?
Lemon v. Kurtzman: There are a lot of people in America who would like to see the government provide funding to private, religious schools. Critics argue that this would violate the separation of church and state and sometimes the courts agree with this position.
Understanding religious liberty and religious freedom in America requires understanding the varying and often contradictory court decisions which have been made in this area. So, this site will begin presenting summaries and expalantions of major Supreme Court decisions dealing with religion and religious freedom.
Lee v. Weisman: How far can a school go when it comes to accommodating the religious beliefs of students and parents? Many schools have traditionally had someone offer prayers at important school events like graduations, but critics argue that such prayers violate the separation of church and state because they mean that the government is endorsing particular religious beliefs.
