Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Separation Of Church And State Ten Commandments - 1,961 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Is the Government allowed to promote religion display of the Ten Commandments within / without the bounds of the establishment clause. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion the First Amendment. These words constitute the beginning of the establishment clause in the First Amendment. The motive behind the establishment clause created by the framers of the Constitution was to ensure that religion and government did not mix.

The Constitutions framers were prompted by the situation that prevailed in Europe during that period where religious persecution and taxation to support governments was quite common, often at the expense of the personal and religious freedom of the individual (Cohn). Since the adoption of the first amendment on Dec. 15, 1791, the establishment clause has been the object of several debates and discussions regarding its role in keeping the government secular and ensuring separation of Church and State. In the years before 1947, the establishment clause was applicable only to the federal government. The stand of the Supreme Court has changed over the years, from supporting the separation of Church and State, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) to stating the Constitution doesnt require complete separation of church and state. Lynch v.

Donnelly (1984). The most frequently employed tool to ascertain if a display involving religion is in accord with the establishment clause is the Lemon Test, which was devised by Chief Justice Warren Burger. The case was regarding the subsidizing the salaries of parochial school teachers under a Rhode Island program. In order to clear the Lemon test, the government conduct (1) must have a secular purpose, (2) must have a principal or primary effect that does not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) cannot foster an excessive government entanglement with religion (Cohn). Justice Antonin Scalia is the sternest and most vocal critic of the Lemon approach. At various times, the Supreme Court has invoked the concept of ceremonial deism to deem certain practices as constitutional and not in conflict with the establishment clause.

The two major cases concerning the establishment clause at present are Orden v. Perry in Texas and McCreary County v. ACLU in Kentucky. The government has erected or maintained a monumental or framed display of a particular version of the Ten Commandments, outside of a secular program of educational or historical study or debate. Government is proclaiming a message, not inviting a discussion.

Yet, that message is fundamentally inconsistent with governments role under the First Amendment. (Cunningham). This, according to him is the basic premise for the petitions against the state governments of Texas and Kentucky. The petitioners argue that the display of the Ten Commandments is tantamount to the promotion of one religion at the expense of all other. In addition, the tendency of a secular government to present a homogenized version of the Ten Commandments is leading to a dilution of the very fundamentally divergent views in Judaism and Christianity. The use of the Ten Commandments or Decalogue to promote the notion of a common Judeo Christian legal heritage is incorrect because the Decalogue has been one of distinguishing elements of the differing legal traditions in these two religions. Over the ages, the Decalogue has been worded differently in Judaism and Christianity.

Therefore, to promote a secular, uniform version of the Ten Commandments is to negate both Jewish and Christian history; at the same time, it implies totally ignoring the sentiments of other religions, such as, Hinduism and Islam. The rights granted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment are not well defined (Murray). He cites the presence of the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance to buttress his claim. Going by the history of cases regarding the violation of the establishment clause, the likelihood of arriving at a permanent solution is low. The background of the two cases in Texas and Kentucky suggests that the stance of the court has varied over the years and its judgment too is highly case-specific. (Mauro) The display of a 6 -foot granite monument to the Ten Commandments at the State Capitol grounds in Austin, Texas is considered contrary to the establishment clause by the plaintiff, Thomas Van Orden. Supporters of the display such as Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy point that since the monument is in an open setting surrounded by other unrelated monuments and artifacts, it cannot be construed as an example of the government promoting a particular religion.

The defendants give the reference of Marsh v Chambers, 1983 in which the court approved the opening of a legislature session with a prayer. They also contend that the granite monument can be displayed as a historical artifact. On the other hand, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University Law School states that the display in Austin is the only monument that is religious in nature, among all the monuments on display. It does not serve an educational purpose nor does it have a historical significance.

He feels that the display of the Ten Commandments would have been contextual if they had been displayed in a manner similar to the frieze in the Court chambers, which depicts Moses with the Ten Commandments and other lawgivers such as Hammurabi and Solomon. Given that the frieze depicts lawgivers in a courtroom setting, the Ten Commandments can be considered appropriately placed and not contrary to the establishment clause. The tablet inscribed with the words, I AM the LORD thy God is an undeniable testament to the monuments religiosity. (Boston) The defendants and the plaintiffs agree that the Ten Commandments are essentially a religious text; however, the interpretation of this fact by the two parties is very different. The supporters of the display argue that the country derives its laws from the word of God and whether we like it or not, religion manifests itself through the Ten Commandments in many spheres of life. In addition, since it involves the religious feelings of the majority of the people, the minorities should take a tolerant view of this. The plaintiffs hold that The Ten Commandments are fundamentally sectarian in nature and have religious significance only for Christian and Jewish faiths.

The conservative commentators, during the course of the oral arguments in the court, stated that the displays do not imply inducement or coercion of any kind and a nonbeliever has the option to look the other way. The progressive commentators, on the other hand, worry that governmental support to religion may lead to religious fundamentalism and harm the minority religions. (Stephanopoulos) The lower court in Texas has allowed the display of the commandments. In Kentucky, the issue revolves around framed copies of the Commandments placed on the walls of the courthouse. The lower court in Kentucky has found this to be a contravention of the establishment clause. When the displays were first challenged in 1999, the county officials added other religious and secular texts to the displayed Commandments. However, the court felt that the intention and the effect of the displayed Commandments were to foster religion.

To further dilute the religious impact of the display and to bring out the religious context, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the seal of the United States and the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner have also been added. This, according to David Friedman who is representing ACLU in this case indicates covering up of the original purpose of the display, which was of a religious nature and thus a violation of the establishment clause. Briefs have been filed for and against the display. In the Texas case, briefs have been filed in favor of the display by the states of Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania etc. Briefs in favor of separation of Church and State include the ones file by the Baptist Joint Committee and Interfaith Alliance Foundation and one by the Hindu American Foundation. In the Kentucky case, the states that have come together to support the display include Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Wyoming etc.

Briefs supporting the ACLU of Kentucky include the Anti-Defamation League and Philip A. Cunningham of Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College, American Atheists, the Atheist Law Center, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the American Jewish Committee etc. The brief filed by the legal historians in the Texas case rebuts the claim of the conservative commentators that the United States law is derived from the Ten Commandments. The brief states that the Bill of Rights has mentioned Roman law, British law, and various other legal systems but it has not at any point in time referred to the Ten Commandments with regard to the laws. The fact that arriving at a concrete and lasting solution is not easy is underscored in the article The Texas State Capitol's Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court.

The religious makeup of American society has changed over the last few decades and that at present no religious display can be considered all encompassing and if an attempt is made to homogenize the content of the display then it can dilute the religious importance it holds for its followers. (Hamilton) It appears that the cases regarding the Ten Commandments will finally force the Supreme Court to resolve with finality the position of the government regarding religious displays. It will not be so easy for the Supreme Court to do so as it will have to take into account its previous verdicts, the intentions of the founding fathers while framing the constitution, and the changed religious scenario that exists today. (Smolla) The Supreme Court appears to be considering alternatives to the Lemon test, which has come in for strong criticism as it is viewed as being indeterminate and unduly harsh on religion. Other tests that can be used as a replacement for the Lemon test include the Endorsement test in which a reasonable observer decides whether the governments actions constitute endorsing or disapproving a particular religion. The Coercion test will prevent the government from coercing people into supporting a religion or participating in a religious exercise. A large number of Supreme Court justices find themselves in a quandary, as they do not have any firm convictions either for or against the display of the Ten Commandments vis a vis the establishment clause.

An interesting fact is that only 3 of the Ten Commandments can be considered to have had any sort of influence on the laws of our country. These are sixth, which states Thou shat not kill, the Eighth Thou shalt not steal. Given this fact, most progressive commentators feel that the State should ideally not display the Ten Commandments, which includes commandments such as Thou shalt have no other gods before me, as these are sectarian principles. The Supreme Court is expected to arrive at a verdict on the Texas and Kentucky cases by July. Bibliography Hamilton, Marcie.

The Texas State Capitol's Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court, 23 Apr. 2005 < web > Smolla, Rod Why the Commandments make for such messy law, 23 Apr. 2005 < web > Boston, Rob Church-State separation hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court debates decalogue displays, 23 Apr. 2005 < web > Cohn, Alert. 23 Apr. 2005 < web > Mauro, Tony Court unlikely to resolve commandments disputes forever 23 Apr. 2005 < web > U. S. Supreme Court and the Ten Commandments February 11, 2005 Episode no. 824, 23 Apr. 2005 web Lane, Charles Division of State, Church at High Court, 23 Apr. 2005 < web > Murray, Bruce How high is the wall of separation Apr. 23 2005 < web > Stephanopoulos, Nicholas Ending the ten commandments confusion Apr. 23 2005 < web > Cunningham, Philip Dec. 23, 2004 Brief of Amici Curiae in the Supreme Court of the United States Apr. 23, 2005


Free research essays on topics related to: establishment clause, lower court, separation of church and state, ten commandments, supreme court

Research essay sample on Separation Of Church And State Ten Commandments

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com