Louisiana Vs Agnostico

State of Louisiana v. Agnostico
There are over a thousand religions in the world. However, since there are so many of them not all of the religions can be recognized at once because every religion has a different belief system. Religion has always been an issue that have taking placed in many public institutions and spaces that have been deemed unacceptable. The framers of the Constitution did not want the United States to show the public that they have a preference of religion that can make it seem as if a national religion is established. Therefore, the First Amendment outlines how religion can be exercise. There are many arguments from separationists that argue that certain religious aspect should be seen as not being unconstitutional,
The State should keep everything separated in order to not offend anyone, such as individuals like Mr. Agnostic. Our Constitution ensures that we will protect the people rights and liberties by not promoting or funding just one religion. The constitution establish that the government funds should be prohibited from funding religious exercise. Individuals have the freedom to exercise their religion but not with governmental funds unless the purpose is secular. In Mr. Agnostic case, The Ten Commandments in a public facility can be seen as the U.S has adopted an official national religion, in which it’s promoting. Not only is the religious monument in a public park but the State has to paid for the upkeep, which is not supported in the constitution. Using the case in 1941, the Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black gave the opinion to the court in which he mentions how the “amendment requires states to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers; it does not require the state to be their adversary. State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions. Than it is to favor them.” (135) The State is the reason why the conflict exists because they did not maintain a neutral ground and maintain separation. The religious monument should not be on State property. The religious monument fails the secular
However, we cannot ignore that many government practices have been surrounded around religious aspects. For instance, The U.S currency contain the phrase “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance mentions, “One Nation under God”. These messages are apart of our history which goes back many decades. To say we must keep Church and State separate has been a contradiction by our government. The government cannot say religious messages and displays are unconstitutional in public facilities because these are the same messages that they have promoted and instilled in the people. A State can have certain things pertaining to religion as long it’s not favoring a religion. Which means in this case the religious monument can stay in the part as long as it is not discriminating against religions. The monument in the public park does not endorse a certain religion, the Eagles did not add any commentary it’s just the Ten Commandment text. The Commandments are also embraces by our government because it can serve as moral laws on what you shouldn’t do such as commit murder. Using the Lemon test from the Lemon vs Kurtzman case, the supreme court used three factors in deciding on the case which were secular purpose, primary effect, and entanglement. The monument can be seen by some as being secular because mentioning a religion in particular. The primary effect is that the monument