The Concept Of Religion: Constitional Law
The Concept of Religion
Grand Canyon University
Constitional Law
531
Sameer Patel
April 3, 2013 The Concept of Religion
The first amendment states that there is to be a separation of state and religion. The founding fathers of this country wrote the amendments however, they did not follow what they wrote. They opened meeting with prayer. The public schools said the Our Father prayer and also in the morning they had a bible reading. Until one person made the decision that it was a violation of her first amendment rights. Now it is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Now what is up for questioning is in our pledge of allegiance there is a phrase “one nation under God” and on our money it says “in God we trust” neither …show more content…
The challenge was section 290.09, subd. 22, the claim of the partitions was that by allowing this deduction it would be a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The claim also stated that by the state allowing these certain deduction that it was allowing contributions that were financial to the parochial schools and were in direct violations of the first amendment.
The courts held that the decision to allow the deductions code 290.09, subd. 22, and was not in violation of the first amendment and that the deductions were not promoting religion nor was it inhibiting religion. It was declared” neutral on its’ face”. Therefore, the deductions will be allowed. The courts in their decision process likened that deduction to a deduction to medical expenses or a charitable deduction which are allowed for the parents to take on their individual and therefore would not be held as a violation to the first amendment of the …show more content…
This paper was not a neutral it did in fact promote Christianity. In this case I say that the University acted correctly in not funding the newspaper, (WAP). This was not a violation of free speech as the writers of WAP would have you to think. Student funds would be used to fund the project if it were not in violation of the first amendment. My thoughts on all three of these cases are that the courts did rule correctly according to the Constitution. I also believe that it is only a few Americans that raise so much havoc. After all, it only took one person to raise cane about prayer in school and it changed history. Now there are complaints about everything. What is not understood that if they keep removing God from the government than we are really going to be in trouble. Don’t believe me just look at how the Koreans are going to send bombs here. Also now the homosexuals are claiming protection under the equal protection. This is a backwards kingdom they won’t allow God in public schools but they have readers with homosexuality, Johnny has two daddy’s, how revolting and no one complains about that. The Constitution did not make provisions for them but they are so accepted. All I can say is that may God help us
Grand Canyon University
Constitional Law
531
Sameer Patel
April 3, 2013 The Concept of Religion
The first amendment states that there is to be a separation of state and religion. The founding fathers of this country wrote the amendments however, they did not follow what they wrote. They opened meeting with prayer. The public schools said the Our Father prayer and also in the morning they had a bible reading. Until one person made the decision that it was a violation of her first amendment rights. Now it is a violation of the 1st amendment.
Now what is up for questioning is in our pledge of allegiance there is a phrase “one nation under God” and on our money it says “in God we trust” neither …show more content…
The challenge was section 290.09, subd. 22, the claim of the partitions was that by allowing this deduction it would be a violation of the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The claim also stated that by the state allowing these certain deduction that it was allowing contributions that were financial to the parochial schools and were in direct violations of the first amendment.
The courts held that the decision to allow the deductions code 290.09, subd. 22, and was not in violation of the first amendment and that the deductions were not promoting religion nor was it inhibiting religion. It was declared” neutral on its’ face”. Therefore, the deductions will be allowed. The courts in their decision process likened that deduction to a deduction to medical expenses or a charitable deduction which are allowed for the parents to take on their individual and therefore would not be held as a violation to the first amendment of the …show more content…
This paper was not a neutral it did in fact promote Christianity. In this case I say that the University acted correctly in not funding the newspaper, (WAP). This was not a violation of free speech as the writers of WAP would have you to think. Student funds would be used to fund the project if it were not in violation of the first amendment. My thoughts on all three of these cases are that the courts did rule correctly according to the Constitution. I also believe that it is only a few Americans that raise so much havoc. After all, it only took one person to raise cane about prayer in school and it changed history. Now there are complaints about everything. What is not understood that if they keep removing God from the government than we are really going to be in trouble. Don’t believe me just look at how the Koreans are going to send bombs here. Also now the homosexuals are claiming protection under the equal protection. This is a backwards kingdom they won’t allow God in public schools but they have readers with homosexuality, Johnny has two daddy’s, how revolting and no one complains about that. The Constitution did not make provisions for them but they are so accepted. All I can say is that may God help us