The Establishment Clause Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Everyone knows that in the United States, Church and State are separate. The government can’t “establish” a religion. But what does that really mean?
Before America’s independence the government did plenty of things to “establish” religion. Like force people to go church, pay the salary of ministers, and limit the right to vote to church members.
But after independence, all of that came to an end. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause said that the government couldn’t establish religion any more. It couldn’t force people to go to church, and it couldn’t stop people from going to church either. Americans were free to worship God or not.
That’s how the Establishment Clause was understood for almost 200 years. But in 1971, judges abandoned this history and made up a new test for interpreting the Establishment Clause. It's called the Lemon test.
The problem is, the Lemon test is a vague standard that ignores history and invites some really crazy lawsuits. Like lawsuits forcing governments to knock down memorials to fallen soldiers and police officers. And banning school choirs from singing traditional Christmas carols. And requiring a nativity or menorah to be "balanced" by something non-religious like elves or reindeer.
These lawsuits are not just silly, they erode our culture. The nation’s founders had no problem with religious symbols in the public square. Why? Because the government isn’t telling anyone who to worship or how to worship. It is simply recognizing that religion is a normal part of human culture-and letting people express themselves in the public square. That is something that benefits us all.
Justice Scalia famously said that the Lemon test is like zombie in a late-night horror movie that haunts our public square and makes us afraid of religious symbols. It's time to bury that monster for good and let judges get back to what really works: an Establishment Clause that guarantees everyone’s freedom to worship or not as they see fit, but doesn’t try to scrub every trace of religion from the public square.
You didn't tell us what the Lemon Test is about. You simply appealed to emotion without an explanation. (... knock down memorials to fallen soldiers and police officers. And banning school choirs from singing traditional Christmas carols...)
While the explanation of the Lemon case was practically skipped, there is nothing wrong with pointing out results of the case that the video maker finds offensive. The title should have reflected this focus, though. "Establishment Clause Explained" is misleading.
She is simply pointing out that the lemon test lead to ridiculous and ludicrous lawsuits...because...people are simply ridiculous. And this is the danger when a SC purposely misinterprets what the founding fathers were actually saying. Happens all too often lately.
This did not explain the Establishment Clause at all... Just biased opinion. "Lawsuits erode our culture"?? Reeeaaal intellectual content you guys have going here. I regret giving this video a view.
🤣 did you even watch the video? It literally explains the legal precedent around the establishment clause for the first minute. The only “biased” opinion is your grouchy comment…
Cameron you have nothing better to do than reply to a 3 year old comment? I went to law school, I’m confident in my analysis on the crap video, thanks.
Actually the court case was not abandoned in 1971. The interpretations of the establishment clause is still the same as it was before Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 it only affirms The Establishment Clause under a three-pronged approach using purpose, effect, entanglement:
1 The purpose government's actions must be secured by definition, which was already pre established under the pretence of Separation of church and state.
2.Will the law have an effect on endorsing, or disapproval of religion.
3.Is the government becoming too entangled with religion.
No where's does it include where the government can knockdown statues that do not serve a religious purpose, this is not a vague interpretation of the law.. I think you don't understand the First Amendment.
This is propaganda, not basic information. And citing Scalia? Ew.
This was not a balanced explanation of the Establishment Clause at all. And the Lemon Test IS well defined. It literally so well-defined that a lot of judges and lawyers are seeking to change or remove the Lemon test in order for MORE religious liberties to be expressed.
the problem with this explanation is, the government, in almost all cases, will not allow secular displays or displays from other religions on government property other than Jewish or Christian. The so called silly lawsuits is a result of the government accepting christian displays, while denying displays from other groups.
When put to task on this and the courts rule that all faiths an secular displays must be allows, the government withdraws all displays, so that no one can put up a display.
This also goes for local government meeting where opening prayers/invocations are given by members of the public. Some councils will withdraw all invocations so Muslims, Wiccan's, Satanist or Atheist can not give an invocation. In a few cases, when an atheist or member of The Satanic Temple were granted the right to give an invocation, members of the community would drown them out with a christian prayer in unison
Also in schools... Now it's been ordered that public schools need to openly display "In God We Trust" somewhere in the school
The motto "In God We Trust" wasn't even the Motto until 1956, as part of the Red Scare Campaign against the Soviet Union. a year later in 1967, it was put on paper bank notes
The christian right, are upset that Christianity is not taught in schools. Which version of Christianity should be taught? there are over 100.
From a cultural and historic point of view, Christianity can be taught in regards to it's origins and same for Islam, Hinduism etc, but again, the Christian right freak out as soon as the class moves from the cultural history of Christianity, into learning about the cultural history of Islam, calling it 'indoctrination by the radical leftist.
Clearly, in the last decade or so, the Christian right has elected officials that o their utmost best to muddy the waters of separation of church an state
Clearly, your biased views don't allow you to understand 'Separation of Church and starte and it's establishment clause
Establishment Clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
But even if one accepts that the First Amendment creates a wall between church and state by its wording, it only limits the power of Congress (or the federal government) to do such things (see Barron v Baltimore).
@@teoanselmi581 there is exceptions for what they refer to as 'A grandfather clause' or sometimes even "Blue laws". ie; ban on Sunday shopping
@@johanna.browne Indeed see McGowan v. Maryland (1961) an 8-1 decision.
@@teoanselmi581 right, which is as I stated in regards to Grandfather laws and as a result, Blue laws.
as the court ruled, they might have had christian origins (the law) but the secular argument was to provide everyone with a day of rest.
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have a secular purpose.
Now, 60 years later, almost everything is open on Sundays almost everywhere in the USA with some restrictions. So at some point, this law was challenged again and lost. some areas still have Sunday shopping restrictions, but mostly in relation to Alcohol sales. local governments townships/counties make their own rules around this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_shopping
Incorrect. Gay symbols, religious symbols, secular symbols all are frequent on public/gov. Property.
It's too bad this video is not objectively derived. It could be a very helpful learning tool. I don't understand why it's so difficult to be objective without interjecting personal opinions on matters where such opinions are inappropriate, poorly analyzed and/or so truncated as to be meaningless.
Because muh Bible.
Did you watch the video? Maybe pay attention when you do…
What exactly was inappropriate or poorly analyzed? Did the lemon test lead to ridiculous lawsuits? Yes it did. I think you did not necessarily understand the point she was trying to make or is making. If you watch the last part, she clearly states that the founding fathers had NO problem with display of any religious symbols or people practicing religion....for over 200 years, until the "Lemon Test" came along and forced the definition of religion to spiraling out of control....due to people's ridiculous interpretations and ideas. They should have kept it the way it was. Why? Because you just cannot EVER find a solution for an issue that will make everyone happy. Period. That's the case with many issues in America and unfortunately the SC forgets all too often, that making it right for one group of people....might force the other side to live unhappily or even strip them from their fundamental rights.
Good video, except the historical background should be modified some. There were in fact state churches even with the ratification of the constitution. The first amendment only applied to the federal establishment of a religion. Of course, since then, states have adopted this same view, but it was not originally so. Someone can correct me if I’m off on some of this though.
Came here for an explanation for the Establishment Clause and the Lemon test, got emotion and bias.
Thumbs down.
lol that you think this is biased tells a lot about what you believe…
Becket defends religious and secular peoples rights to act on their beliefs. It’s that simple. Being against freedom of conscience harms everyone’s rights. Try and see past your intolerance.
Okay, so what's the lemon test?
A decision on the combined cases - The American Legion v. American Humanist Association and Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. American Humanist Association - is expected by the end of June.
What you're describing (Christmas songs in public schools, Jewish religious symbols in public spaces) IS establishment. It's the definition of establishment. And Scalia is hardly the majority opinion. He's one of the most conservative justices that served on the Court in recent history (until the new MAGA justices, that is). I'm not sure why it's so difficult for religious people to practice their beliefs in the private realm. No one is stopping Christians from filling their yards with crosses and manger scenes. No one is stopping Christians from decorating their church grounds, or sending their kids to private Christian schools where their beliefs won't be challenged by the diversity of opinion/experience that comes from living in a free society. I'm not Christian, and I'm glad I'm not confronted by Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, Buddhist, etc symbology in our secular public realm. I would never stop people from saying grace in a public park, or stop a Christian group from using a classroom in our public schools to meet after hours. That said, the government SHOULD be prevented from ESTABLISHING monuments to religion in the public realm. After all, these spaces are owned by all of us, and if people like me were in the majority, I wouldn't find it fair to have statues of Darwin all over the place, or quotes from the Daily Stoic plastered all over courthouses.
Returning your cash: a guide to refunds
I wouldn't say it protects ALL americans for religious symbols to be displayed on government property or governemnt building, and would accosiate or show that the government supports religion, even if thats not the intended purpose.
Binance's CEO discusses future developments in an exclusive interview - don't miss it
I thought I was going to watch a nice little informative video. Not some right wing biased B.S. oh well...
lol that you think this is biased tells a lot about what you think…
Becket defends religious and secular peoples rights to act on their beliefs. It’s that simple. Being against freedom of conscience harms everyone’s rights. Try and see past your intolerance.
This is a biased “explanation”. Better sources explaining the establishment clause are out there. This one had promise until it started trying to sway people’s views.
We get that you don't like the lemon Test. Label your video "a criticism of the Lemon Test." And stop adhering solely to the doctrine of Scalia.
She simply pointed out the ridiculous lawsuits that followed the lemon test. Scalia was indeed a SC Judge...like it or not but maybe you should listen to some of his cases. He was indeed very funny, smart and enlightening. Scalia is not adhering to any doctrine...he is merely explaining that the test gives too much room for crazy interpretations. It's HIS job to do that.
@@jekokoje8592 I said she was adhering to his doctrine, not that Scalia was. However, I wasn't trying to debate politics, I was just annoyed with the inaccurate video title.
Avoid this video
And that is the reason WHY God tells us NOT to make or have any religious symbols. At least not Christian ones. We are not supposed to worship symbols because it only leads to unnecessary arguments and confusion.
A very poor legal analysis and interpretation!
So well said, thank you. It's plan as day in the Constitution. By allowing it to be amended, It did exactly what it said shall not be done. If that can be done, then any of or freedoms can be changed. Makes us feeling protected by our Constitution meaningless. I don't understand why we as a nation can not just change it back to what it clearly says.
This is great, thank you so much!
This is an extremely biased video, and you dared to include your personal beliefs. It is clear that you do not understand or cannot explain the establishment clause in a manner that portrays unbiased information.
Absolute nonsense
right wing BS
Very biased video, dislike
People need to read their Bible and know real history and what the founders said and believed..if they dont know these 2 well.. Then those who count on peoples ignorance and manipulate you to their agenda..and destroy.
I’m gonna go ahead and not read the Bible, thanks though
Reading the bible made me an atheist. Also, our founding fathers hated organized religion. You need to brush up on your history.
@Mike Bell Making assumptions about people is not very Christianly.
Do you believe that God created men with intelligence to discover medicine? I hope so because I highly recommend asking your doctor if Haldol is right for you.
@
My Lady
The last thing Progressives care about is history.
1.They're too narcissistic to consider that answers can be found outside themselves(group identity).
2.They worship materialism and concern themselves only with what they can accumulate.