The Constitution And Religion: A Fine Line

The US Constitution's First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is known as the Establishment Clause, which prohibits the federal government from adopting any official religion. The Free Exercise Clause, on the other hand, protects an individual's right to religious belief and practice. The Supreme Court has interpreted these clauses, with notable cases including Lemon v Kurtzman, Lynch v Donnelly, and Burwell v Hobby Lobby. The Constitution's Article VI also specifies that no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification for any public Office, ensuring religious liberty and equality.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today

$9.97 $12

The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment

$29.99

The Godless Constitution and the Providential Republic (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (EUSLR))

$26.48 $32.99

Religious Liberty and the American Founding: Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment Religion Clauses

$28.39 $30

Establishment of Religion Clause: The First Amendment: Its Constitutional History and The Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights)

$17.02 $19.99

Religion and the Constitution, Volume 2: Establishment and Fairness

$47 $47

The First Amendment

The Establishment Clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or, in simpler terms, that the federal government cannot adopt an official religion. The strictest interpretation of this clause prohibits any governmental intervention in the religious affairs of citizens, as this would infringe on their religious freedom. The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from providing financial assistance to religious institutions. This clause has been interpreted to mean that there must be a separation of church and state, with the metaphor of a "wall of separation" between the two, ensuring that neither can influence the other.

The Free Exercise Clause, on the other hand, prohibits Congress from interfering with an individual's exercise of religion. This clause protects an individual's right to believe and practice their religion, shielding them from laws that would expressly inhibit their religious practices. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted limits to this clause, allowing the government to legislate against certain religious practices that conflict with other legal or moral standards, such as bigamy and peyote use.

Religious liberty

The US Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This amendment was added to the Constitution due to concerns from religious groups that it did not sufficiently guarantee civil and religious rights, and fears that the federal government would select one religion to support over the others.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment has been interpreted in various ways. The Supreme Court has allowed a certain degree of government involvement in religion, such as permitting government funding to go to private religious schools and allowing prayers to begin certain legislative meetings. However, the Court has also ruled that the government cannot promote religion through its educational facilities, and that legislative prayers are for legislators and not the public.

The Free Exercise Clause, also part of the First Amendment, has been suggested to contradict the Establishment Clause, as the protection of certain religious practices can be seen as the government taking a stance in favour of religion. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause to the states, meaning that they are also not permitted to establish a religion.

The Constitution also includes a No Religious Test Clause, which prohibits religious tests as a qualification for public service. This was included to prevent the establishment of a national church, as had occurred in England.

Religious tests for office

The Constitution of the United States does not allow the government to establish a religion. The First Amendment, ratified in 1791, includes the Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This clause forbids Congress from making any law that establishes a religion.

The Constitution also includes the No Religious Test Clause, which states:

> Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This clause, introduced by Charles Pinckney, a delegate from South Carolina, passed with little opposition. It was included in the Constitution to prevent the return of the Test Acts, which were common in England during the 17th and 18th centuries. These acts were designed to exclude anyone who was not a member of the Church of England from holding government office.

The No Religious Test Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that any required oath to serve anything other than the Constitution is invalid. For example, in the case of Ex parte Garland, the Court overturned a loyalty oath that the government had tried to apply to pardoned Confederate officials.

The No Religious Test Clause protects federal officeholders and employees, as well as state officeholders and employees. It is worth noting that nine out of thirteen states initially had some form of religious test requirement for officeholders in their constitutions. However, the No Religious Test Clause now ensures that religious tests cannot be used to disqualify someone from holding public office in the United States.

While the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion and requires a separation between church and state, the Supreme Court has allowed a certain degree of government involvement in religion. For example, the Court has permitted government funding to go to private religious schools and allowed prayers to begin certain legislative meetings.

Explore related products

The Supreme Court and Religion in American Life, Vol. 1: The Odyssey of the Religion Clauses (New Forum Books)

$26.96 $81

Prison Religion: Faith-Based Reform and the Constitution

$37 $37

How to Write Articles, Constitution and Bylaws for Churches

$12.99

Religious Freedom and the Australian Constitution: Origins and Future (ICLARS Series on Law and Religion)

$55.99

The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986

$4.99 $74

First Amendment: The Free Exercise of Religion Clause (Bill of Rights)

$19.99

Government funding of religious schools

The First Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1791, includes the Establishment Clause, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This clause has been interpreted in various ways, but it generally prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favouring one religion over others.

The question of whether the government can fund religious schools is a complex and controversial issue that has been the subject of debate and legal challenges. Some argue that using taxpayer money to support religious schools violates the Establishment Clause and the principle of separation of church and state. On the other hand, proponents of government funding for religious schools argue that excluding religious groups from accessing education-related funds available to secular recipients violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

The US Supreme Court has issued several rulings related to this issue, with a majority of current justices appearing to favour the rights of religious groups to access government funding for education. For example, in Carson v. Makin (2022), the Court held that when governments choose to subsidize private schools, they cannot exclude religious schools from receiving those funds. However, the Court has also upheld the Establishment Clause in other cases, such as ruling that legislative prayers are permissible as long as they are not directed at the public.

The debate over government funding for religious schools is part of a broader discussion about the role of religion in government and schools, and the interpretation of religious freedom. Some see the expansion of school choice programs and vouchers as a positive development, allowing parents to use public funds to send their children to private or religious schools. Others argue that these programs undermine public schools and could lead to uncertainty and disruption for students and families.

The specific laws and policies regarding government funding of religious schools can vary at the state level, and some states may choose to amend their laws to exert more control over charter schools and require a secular education. The outcome of legal challenges, such as the case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma, will have significant implications for the role of religion in publicly funded education and the interpretation of religious freedom in the US.

Legislative prayers

The First Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1791, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is known as the Establishment Clause, which dictates that the government must remain neutral on matters of faith. The Free Exercise Clause, also part of the First Amendment, protects religious practices that the government would otherwise prohibit.

Despite this, the US Supreme Court has permitted official prayer in one limited setting: the meetings of legislative bodies, such as town boards and state legislatures. This is based on an "unambiguous and unbroken history" of legislative prayer dating back to the First Congress. However, the Court has set limits on these invocations, ruling that they may not "denigrate non-believers or religious minorities, threaten damnation, or preach conversion". They must also remain consistent with the purpose of solemnizing and lending gravity to the occasion.

In the case of Marsh v. Chambers (1983), the Court upheld the practice of starting legislative sessions with an invocation, despite the prayers frequently containing explicitly Christian themes. The Court held that such prayers are "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country". They are constitutional unless the selection of prayer-givers stems from an impermissible motive or the prayer opportunity is exploited to advance or disparage any faith or belief.

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, the Court ruled that a town hall meeting that began with prayers, predominantly given by members of different denominations of Christianity, did not violate the Establishment Clause. This was partly because legislative prayers are for the legislators and not the public. However, in a separate case, the court of appeals held that the Town of Greece violated the Establishment Clause by allowing volunteer citizens to open town board meetings with a prayer, despite the Town's assertion that it did not regulate the content of the prayers or discriminate in selecting prayer-givers.

Frequently asked questions