Reference no: EM131800135

Question: Respond to the following paragraph. You can either agree or disagree with it. response, should be 150 words.

The 'No Establishment' Clause

The chapter, "Conscience and the Establishment Clause" by Hammond, emphasized on the correlation between "conscience" and congress. In a society, an individual of any religion that is receiving welfare depends on the maintenance of the free exercise law. Hammond uses forth Richard John Neuhaus' idea that the court judge's cases based on the legitimacy of a person's belief in their religion, which Hammond disproves. He considers that when religion is being involved in a lawful matter, its value does not just disappear. Hammond talks about when "conscience became a substitution for religion," there was a greater meaning behind religion.

When free rights are prolonged to "conscience or conviction" and now religious views are seen as traditions being unlawful. The Free Exercise Clause gives every citizen the right to practice whatever religion they want, however, the No Establishment Clause forbids the government from supporting one religion over another and putting up a church. Jefferson shows that the No Establishment Clause was made to build obstacles between the church and state. An example is the "Country of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union" case that disobeyed the No Establishment Clause. In this case, Christianity was shown in favor by the government. This also goes against the Free Exercise Clause because every one is owned to believe in whatever they want, and this portrays that one religion is not acknowledged. Another example is the Engel v Vitale 1962 case, where it is shows that the state and church cannot clash, because then it is violation towards the establishment clause.

Congress would be inflicting with the No Establishment Clause to label anything as unconstitutional, because everyone is entitled to practice of any faith without any restrictions. This also violates the 5th and 14th amendment, which congress and government cannot be in favor to anyone regarding his or her religion or skin color. Both the Free Exercise Clause and the No Establishment Clause include the harms of the 1st amendment. This is shown from the Everson v. Board 1947 case. It would have been prohibited if the government provided money for the transportation for the school. If any involvement of the government were done it would have violated the No Establishment Clause.

The argument of Conscience goes through different legal clashes. This can show one the correlation between Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. Hammond talks about different Supreme Court cases that conscience plays a role on. It can be easily distinguished when "conscience is seen as the legal equivalent of religion" in the Establishment cases. He uses examples like homosexuality, abortion and many others to make his valid points across. During these cases, majorities are in favor, while the others are left in harm ways. Its not only shown in these cases, I feel it is shown through out history, it always goes in favor of what majority shows.