A law setting aside a time of silence in public schools for "meditation or voluntary prayer" violates the Establishment clause when its "sole purpose" as evidenced by its text and legislative history is to endorse a religious exercise, and it thus has no secular purpose. (Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) 472 U.S. 38.)
Public school practices conducted on premises as part of the school's program, whose purpsoe and effect is to aid religion, have been held to violate the Establishment clause. The fact that programs may be voluntary does not save them, either. The Establishment clause, unlike the Free Exercise clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion. (Engle v. Vitale (1962) 370 U.S. 421.) Requiring public school students to salute the flag and recite the pledge of alliegance is invalid as applied to children whose religious scruples forbid it. The government cannot require affirmation of any belief. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) 319 U.S. 624.) The Supreme Court has held that the Free Exercise clause affords no right to a religious exemption from a "neutral" law that happens to impose a substantial burden on religious practice, as long as the law is otherwise constitutionally applied to persons who engage in the same or similar action for nonreligious reasons. That covers the prohibition of polygamy but not animal sacrifice. Ordinances that barred ritual animal sacrifice with the object of suppressing a religion that employed this as a principal form of devotion violate the Free Exercise clause. (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah (1993) 113 S.Ct. 2217.) When a governmental action burdens or restricts conduct that is religious for some persons (but not all), the Courts do a balancing test considering 3 factors: 1. The severity of the burden; 2. The strength of the state interest (the state interest has to be "of the highest order", "compelling", "important"); 3. Alternative means (can the state interest be satisfied by means that impose a lesser burden on the religion). American history is replete with government recognition of our religious heritage and with official expressions of religious beliefs. This does not violate the Establishment clause unless, "in reality, it establishes a religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." (Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) 465 U.S. 668.) The Supreme Court has never defined what religion is, but it has ruled that religious beliefs don't have to be theistic. (Torasco v. Watkins (1961) 367 U.S. 488.) ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Richard J. Williams" <willy...@...> wrote: > > Marek Reavis wrote: > > ...because even a cursory examination of the TMO > > history (and present structure) demonstrates that > > it is replete with religious imagery, religious > > language, religious beliefs, and a religious and > > philosophical mission. The state cannot become > > entangled with it because it would violate the > > Establishment clause. > > > There is really no *absolute* separation of church > and state. U.S. money has cultic images and religious > statements printed on bills and coins. > > What about 'bowing down' or saluting the U.S. flag? > In some ways, 'Americanism' is a religion itself. > > Government laws are permitted to impinge upon private > religious practice for individuals. For example, state > laws can prohibit such practices bigamy, having sex > with children, and occasionally animal sacrifice, and > the use of certain drugs, even if actions are part of > a religious practice. >
