The First Amendment: Safeguarding Disestablishment In America

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution expressly supports the disestablishment of religion and the separation of church and state. The clause, principally authored by James Madison, states that Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion. This reflects the widespread agreement after independence that there should be no nationally established church. While the Establishment Clause itself only applies to the federal government, all states had disestablished religion by 1833, and the Supreme Court held in the 1940s that disestablishment extends to state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that statutes must have a secular legislative purpose, neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, and not fostering excessive government entanglement with religion.

Explore related products

Murder the Truth: Fear, the First Amendment, and a Secret Campaign to Protect the Powerful

$19.9 $32.99

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment

$12.63 $17.99

A Short & Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short & Happy Guides)

$28 $28

The First Amendment: Essays on the Imperative of Intellectual Freedom

$23

Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

$14.59 $20

The Case Against Free Speech: The First Amendment, Fascism, and the Future of Dissent

$27.16 $22.49

The Establishment Clause

The history of the time in which the Constitution was framed is important to understanding the need for disestablishment. Although the religiosity of the generation that framed the Constitution has been overstated, European history was marked by the execution of religious heretics of various faiths. This likely influenced the Framers' concern about the potential for religious tyranny and their understanding of the importance of religious liberty.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal effects must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. This test has been modified and further interpreted in subsequent cases, including County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989) and Salazar v. Buono (2010).

Separation of church and state

The concept of "separation of church and state" in the United States is often attributed to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This clause reflects the consensus after independence that there should be no nationally established church. While the phrase "separation of church and state" is not explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment, it has been interpreted to imply this separation.

The Establishment Clause was principally authored by James Madison, who, along with Thomas Jefferson, believed that state support for a particular religion or any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to financially support a faith they did not follow through taxation violated their natural right to religious liberty. Madison proposed a bill of rights that included religious liberty to aid in the ratification of the Constitution, which some religious groups felt did not sufficiently guarantee civil and religious rights.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and enforcing the separation of church and state. In the 1940s, the Court held that the Establishment Clause applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Notable cases include Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), which banned bible reading and the recitation of prayers in public schools, and Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), which established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment. The Lemon test requires statutes to have a secular legislative purpose, principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion.

The issue of religious monuments on public land has also sparked debate and Supreme Court cases, such as Van Orden v. Perry (2005) and McCreary County v. ACLU (2005). While there is agreement that new religious monuments should not be installed on public land, there is fierce debate over the removal of existing monuments. The Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of these monuments without articulating a clear general standard, as seen in Salazar v. Buono (2008), involving a Christian cross on federal land in the Mojave Desert.

Religious liberty

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment expressly supports disestablishment and the separation of church and state in the US Constitution. The clause, principally authored by James Madison, states that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion". This reflects the widespread agreement after independence that there should be no nationally established church.

The Framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were influenced by European history, which was marked by the execution of religious heretics from various faiths. Notable figures such as Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and John Adams were Deist and had a healthy understanding of the potential for religious tyranny. Madison, along with Thomas Jefferson, believed that state support for a particular religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to financially support a faith they did not follow through taxation violated their natural right to religious liberty.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court, which has been called upon to determine the meaning of the clause as the country's citizenry became more diverse. While the First Amendment does not explicitly mention the separation of church and state, the Establishment Clause is often interpreted to require this separation. The metaphor of a "wall or hedge of separation" between the "wilderness of the world" and "the garden of the church" was first used by Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island. He believed that government involvement in the church would corrupt it.

The Supreme Court has considered the constitutionality of various issues related to the Establishment Clause. For example, in Abington School District v. Schempp, the court banned bible reading and the recitation of prayers in public schools, citing the Establishment Clause. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Court established a three-pronged test for laws dealing with religious establishment, requiring statutes to have a secular legislative purpose, principal effects that neither advance nor inhibit religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion.

Explore related products

Understanding the First Amendment (Understanding Series)

$54.45 $55

First Amendment (Examples & Explanations)

$50.09 $76.95

First Amendment For Beginners

$7.8 $15.95

The First Amendment (Concepts and Insights)

$45 $60

First Amendment: [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$240.9 $308

The First Amendment (Aspen Casebook)

$83.67 $206

Religious monuments on public land

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution expressly supports disestablishment. The clause, principally authored by James Madison, states that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion". This reflects the widespread agreement after independence that there should be no nationally established church.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state. This interpretation has been the basis for several Supreme Court decisions regarding religious monuments on public land. While it is clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is significant debate over whether existing monuments should be removed.

One such case is Van Orden v. Perry, where the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected on federal land in the Mojave Desert by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. While the Court did not articulate a clear standard for deciding these cases, it is worth noting that five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a land transfer that would place the memorial on private land.

Another relevant case is McCreary County v. ACLU, where the Court considered the issue of religious displays on public property during the Christmas holiday season. While the Court did not provide a clear standard, it suggested that certain religious displays may be permissible if they have a secular purpose or do not endorse a particular religion.

The issue of religious monuments on public land is a complex and controversial topic, with no clear consensus on the permissible boundaries of religious expression in the public sphere. However, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment remains a critical component of US law, ensuring that the government does not establish an official religion or unduly favour one religious group over another.

Religious instruction in public schools

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion," is the provision in the US Constitution that expressly supports disestablishment. This clause, principally authored by James Madison, reflects the consensus after independence that there should be no nationally established church.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in numerous cases involving religious instruction in public schools. One notable case is Engel v. Vitale in 1962, where the Court ruled that school-sponsored prayer, even nonsectarian prayer, violated the Establishment Clause. Since then, the Court has continued to push forward with decisions banning organized Bible reading for religious and moral instruction and prohibiting school-sponsored prayers at high school events. These rulings have emphasized that the Constitution prohibits public schools from indoctrinating children in religion.

However, the courts have also ruled that public schools have substantial discretion to regulate the religious expression of teachers during instructional hours, especially when students are required to be present. For example, in Bishop v. Aronov (1991), the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld restrictions on a professor who regularly discussed his Christian beliefs in class and offered a "Christian perspective" on human physiology. The court recognized the university's authority to control the way instruction was conducted while also protecting the professor's academic freedom.

While public schools cannot provide religious instruction, they may teach about religion and promote religious liberty and respect for all religious views. For instance, they can offer classes on the Bible as literature, the history of religion, comparative religion, and the role of religion in history. Additionally, public school students have the right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they distribute other literature unrelated to school curricula.

Furthermore, public schools have the discretion to permit students to attend off-premises religious instruction without encouraging or discouraging participation. Schools may also excuse students from class to accommodate their religious exercises, such as prayer or fasting, as long as it does not impose burdens on other students. These accommodations ensure that schools remain sensitive to the religious needs of their students without endorsing or promoting any particular religion.

Frequently asked questions